John Adams

If you don't think there's been voter fraud, in person, I'll sell you a bridge. IDs were required in the PA primaries already held this year, but if you didn't have your ID, you were merely warned. The law was passed in March. Even most Dems favor the law, in polls I've seen.

That's awesome. Adams and Jefferson hated each other more than any two candidates ever did. Adams did most of his attacking himself, while Jefferson (such a kitty) had others do his dark bidding.

I only wish Obama could enunciate the philosophical underpinnings for his politics.

No commentator makes my blood boil as much as Krugman. When I argue with my friends, the majority of whom are leftist nuts, they love to bring up Krugman columns and tell me that I have no right to argue with a Nobel Laureate.

If the best the NYTimes can do today is roll out someone who says that Ryan needs to cut deeper into things like defense (which I agree with), it's getting desperate over there.

As far as I can tell, the biggest standard of living challenge that we have today that wasn't around as much 50 years ago is obesity, and people are fatasses by choice.

Read the oath. There is a charge unless you have no ID. Said another way, you can't get a free voter ID if you have certain other photo IDs. It's wacky.

If you want a photo ID, which is the only thing you need to vote...and it is required by law...it still costs $13.50. Tell, me. If I want to vote, how much does it cost? Gas is incidental because it is not required to vote. But if I don't have the ID, I am forbidden to vote. ID DNE incidental. ID is required by law. And the minimum I can get the ID for is $13.50. Therefore, minimum cost to vote: $13.50. Now, in a move bound to baffle the best of minds, the fee is waived if you sign an oath that says, more or less, "I have no form of ID in my entire life to prove I'm me." Which makes no sense. So if I have no ID...I can get a photo ID (with anyone's name I guess) for nothing. WTF? Here's the form you sign to waive the fee: http://www.dmv.state...NoProofofID.pdf

Charging someone to vote makes no sense, even when it's just $15. If I see another sign about how this law is disenfranchising voters, I may go around the bend. I had someone come to my door a few weeks ago and tell me that if my voter reg card had a middle initial and my license did not, the new law would not allow me to vote. I laughed and told him he was nuts. Then he asked for an Obama donation.

Yeah, that was not clear from context. Regardless, since someone knew what you were talking about (god knows what you were referring to, but it was in another thread I guess), I apologize for being a narcissistic douche. You're still creepy.

I get jokes.

You're an a$$ for calling me Joe Biden. Before he became VP, I used to see him on the Acela train from DC on his way back to Delaware. Setting aside his politics, the guy was friendly and happy to be recognized by a then-regular Meet the Press watcher (have not been able to maintain my interest post-Tim). Hard to imagine it was only 6-7 years ago and he was traveling just like the rest of us stiffs.

The NY times must have been thrilled when this liberal biographer of Rand agreed to pen this editorial. She outlines some of the Rand/Libertarian criticisms of the current Replublican party and Ryan. To the author's credit, I looked her up and bought the Rand biography. I don't know much about Rand's life besides that she was a Russian immigrant and a bit of a mess in her love life (some kind of permissive, from her POV, love triangle between her and her husband and her and some other dude). From her writings, I've always assumed she was a joyless, humorless wretch but I have no idea if that's right.

You're starting to get creepy. Just because you can't grasp that someone can support a candidate but still be critical of them doesn't mean you need obsess about it in completely unrelated threads.

Here are the arguments against: (1) People can't get valid photo IDs (2) People won't know about the law change until they show up to vote (3) There is no evidence that anyone ever faked an identity to vote To which I say, "wah." If you aren't informed enough to have heard about this law, and take actions to get the photo ID before the election, you don't deserve to vote! The WSJ is a subscription site so here's an excerpt: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444375104577591002474351134.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

Are you saying that you can't have a base unless you're on a presidential ticket? Sorry Magox that my criticisms of someone I'm going to vote for, and that you adore, are hard for you to swallow. Your boys aren't perfect--just better than the alternative. And at least they are focused on the economy and cutting spending. But although I know you'll continue to have a tough time handling it, I'll be happy to keep pointing out their idiocy as it arises. Everyone is in love with Ryan as the amazing spending cutter but why he is not also cutting defense--where waste is rampant? Again, I hope he's pandering and not stupid enough to miss the waste in defense. If you don't think he's doing that to maintain support of his party base, what's your explanation for why he's cutting everywhere but there? You think it's something other than pandering? And a Constitutional amendment to define marriage? I don't care if it was to open the definition of marriage to men and women, men and men, and women and women--it's stupid, and yes, that's the word I'll choose when it fits. Again, sorry if that rankles you. Take the blinders off. Wrong. I was pointing out how much Magox loves them. I wasn't insulting his or their sexuality. Dolt.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's either pandering or he's a fool. Increasing military spending is utterly senseless. Is there any position that you disagree with their position on besides immigration? Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?

Pandering to the base. Yes, ultra senseless and I expect more from Ryan.

I applaud those economists but I'm guessing that 400 other economists (the Krugman camp) will come out in support of Obama. I wouldn't put much faith in this.

Moral reletavism is not something I believe. I'm willing to bet pre Judeo societies didn't think that killing your own newborn because it slept crappy was OK...and they had no concept of a monotheistic god. I don't under credit Jewish law. It gave us a framework for our laws, no doubt, but that was not my point. Religion has nothing to do with why many people act morally.

People have no trouble distinguishing right and wrong even if they don't have religion.

No sh__ Sherlock, but that's a social issue only simpletons care about.

Yes. Private companies should be free to give whatever benefits they want to (or don't).

Do you think people don't kill because of religion? Do you think people don't understand that killing is wrong because of religion? Of course not.

You think the basis for not killing is religious?