TakeYouToTasker

I'd be curious how a move like this would play out, though I suspect it would actually decrease participation in elections.

Your ignorance is on display. I have no idea why you thought ignorance should be your go-to, or why you're basking in it, but there you have it. You may wish to consider changing your argument.

And an understanding of firearms use roughly in line with someone who has watched a few Jason Bourne movies.

Says the dope who has no idea what it's like to fire a weapon under great stress, in the dark, after waking from a sound sleep in the middle of the night. You're watched far too many movies.

Individuals would have the exact same opportunity to vote that they have now, the only difference would be the ability to vet them in order to make sure they should be voting, in order to protect the sanctity of the franchise. As to gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is a feature of our Representative system, not a flaw. The House is intended to represent small enclaves of individuals with fairly homogenous views. This ensures that individuals have a voice that actually represents them in our Federal government. This is the reason why House elections aren't statewide: they aren't supposed to represent a statewide view. A grid system actually makes the Body less representative of the people.

Might be the perfect ice breaker to start swinging.

Preventing people who shouldn't be voting from voting is only good if everyone who actually properly enjoys the franchise does vote? What kind of non-sensical malarkey is that?

They need to drudge up something, anything, at this point so that they can then play Seven degrees of Kevin Bacon with the administration. It's a Hail Mary.

You might be able to save some money by buying him a privy stick instead. I've read that there are many old treasures buried underneath old outhouses.

...

A few questions: Do you believe that all investment strategies carry the same potential for gain? Do you think managing money is a talent/skill equally possessed by all/most people? If not, what do you think is the best indicator of the talent/skill of money management?

I keep seeing people writing "Trickledown economics", which means something specific, and a supporting context which doesn't seem to align with that specific meaning. Are we all sure we're using the right words here?

Another key distinction, perhaps the most important distinction, is that Rosa Parks was being discriminated against by the government, which had forbade her from sitting at the front of a bus.

Or when the government effectively creates and sanctions monopoly via regulation.

Durring that stretch he really wasn't all that bad. He even had a handful of games he pitched very well in. He was, more than anything else, incredibly unlucky.

You aren't qualified to offer this response. Your posting history indicates that you really have no understanding of complex systems, and when challenged, you simply tuck tail and run away. IE. You've never stuck around to participate in debate, or have your pre-conceptions challenged. How would you know what other people's ideas are? How would you even begin to evaluate them if you stuck around to listen, and participate? And finally, and again, how are you not too ashamed to show your face here after your embarrassingly vocal display of ignorance the last time we spoke?

This sucks.

Easily my favorite major city in the US. Common sentiment, which is what led to Hillsborough.

Wait, so you're leasing your land for use to farmers, using your privately held capital to exploit the labor of the proletariat?

So, all this time when you've been talking about owning/operating a business, and your grand successes with a quasi-communist approach, what you've really been doing is running a farming co-op in freaking Hawaii?

Why the hell would knowing when you're going to die increase the amount of planning you're doing, given that you know you are going to die anyway. Anyone who is an adult, has dependents and or spouse, and either/or doesn't want to burden them/wants to leave them a life of comfort should have ample planning in place.

So it looks like the "Fight for $15" folks wound up creating some $15/hour jobs after all.

HC: Marrone (horrible decision to have to make) OC: Gailey DC: Fewell ST: Lynn (has 3 years of ST coaching experience)

Personal responsibility, and making insurance more portable. Individuals should be encouraged to purchase insurance when they are young and healthy to lock in rates just as they do with life insurance. That insurance should be portable, so they can carry it with them, paying those same rates. Those who have been irresponsible, and have not purchased when young and healthy, should not be bailed out by the tax payer as this only incentivizes the irresponsibility. They should be reliant on churches and private charity.

No. The ACA failed because it depended on the young and healthy purchasing expensive plans they didn't need, in order to subsidize the old and unhealthy, while incentivizing them not purchase those plans. The penalty for not purchasing was less than the cost of purchasing, there were no barriers to waiting to purchase until you actually needed care, and the length of time you could remain on your parents insurance was extended. Couple that with the fact that it redefined "insurance" as "the prepayment for 100% of all medical costs ever", and mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions, and it was doomed from the jump. It was the rough equivalent of forcing home insurers to cover houses that had already burned down.