Chilly

Live cats or dead cats? I'm thinking my mistake was using dead cats, they don't throw any body heat like the live cats.

All you people make the same mistake. You have to insulate the room with a layer of spandex!

Sadly, that could work in Salt Lake City

tl;dr

Meh. This has been an issue that my professors have been talking about in class since I started at UT. Is Stewart really helping by making people more cynical? He is an avid follower of politics and promotes America, but how does this have an effect on it? Yeah, it has an effect on people's views. Everything that a person sees does. The professors that did this study have a nice grasp of the obvious. But where the hell is this sh-- stretched from more cynical opinions to not voting? The whole thing goes like this: College Kids watch the Daily Show. The Daily Show makes kids more cynical. Therefore, College Kids vote less because the Daily Show makes them cynical. But they forgot one really important part.... that there needs to be evidence that being cynical is why they vote less.

Apologies, it was way down and I iddn't see it.

Anyone see Joseph Pitts' (congressman from PA) comment on the House hearing of video games from the daily show last night? Good lord...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G4WHT06mmA...ewart%20violent If you don't want to watch the whole thing (its pretty damn good so do it!), his statement starts at around 6:10. Its just too easy to laugh at congress.

Silly AD, no matter who you vote for, they are a crook.

Ya know, I'm not saying this is the case in Frist, but the whole flip-flopping thing is overused. Once in a while it aint a bad thing to move beyond what you believe and listen to the polls

rofl, I think that taking Mighty out of the name was a bad move.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/06/23/1510255.shtml

@Houston

wtf?

Catchphrases found! BlueFire news reporter Chris W. is reporting that even though Republican-favored Fox News is running a story on finding WMDs, all that Republicans on PPP can do is toss out a link to the story and their favorite catchphrases. No intelligent discussion is expected to form.

Aint saying anything but the truth. Deyz be rednex.

And the Rednecks win a cup.

Everyone, before you post, please read the stupidity that is Lv-Bills. Lv, why the !@#$ are you even a Bills fan?

No way, it would have cost Jay McKee + more, which could have both really screwed up our morale with losing one of the leaders on the team, but would also replace McKee for a defenseman who is better, but imo only marginally for what we would have given up. Pronger wouldn't have solved having 4 defenseman injured & Connolly as well, which is what it ended up coming down to.

So you chose Austin?

Not saying that I agree with it, just saying that it was the image that his campaign was using to promote him.

I think Edwards is benefiting from it being an extremely early poll, too early to tell anything, without campaigning having started yet. Edwards is still fresh in people's minds as the promising young congressman turned VP candidate who at a lot of times looked better then Kerry. He was campaigning in Iowa in 2004. Vilsack hasn't had to campaign since 02, and Clinton's image there is most likely still the one from her first lad days. Its not surprising that Edwards won an early poll, nor would it be surprising to see that change as it gets closer to 08.

Vilsack is an interesting candidate. I think it would take someone like him to dethrone Hillary, and he would have to pull off a couple John Kerry-esque upsets early. He would have to push himself as a moderate of the Democratic party, one who the anti-Hillary crowd could attract. He also would need to focus on campaigning that he is the electable candidate, and that Hillary could never get elected. The Democrats in the last presidential primaries went for Kerry with the #1 polling response being that he seemed to be the most electable to defeat Bush. Vislack would be wise to play off of that, but rather than beat Bush, make it beat the evil Republicans. Vilsack would be able to do it if he could unite New Hampshire, and he has the benefit of Iowa being early. With those two wins under his belt, he would start to get much improved media attention and donations to his campaign, starting a snowball effect to help him through the elections. Tough scenario, but it is a possibility.

Isn't this more or less a critique of the exclusionary rule? From my understanding, SCOTUS is saying that with a warrant to search the home anyway, the person would have forfeitted their right to privacy no matter what while the search was being conducted. Requiring them to open the door or not open the door doesn't change the fact that the evidence would still have been found by the detectives in most cases (thus not related to discovery), and therefore should not be thrown out of the case. They aren't saying that k&a isn't something that is important or constitutional, but rather that using the lack of a k&a as a means to an end to dismiss evidence shouldn't be allowed. Or, rather, that the lack of k&a is not sufficient enough to fall under the exclusionary rule, therefore creating an exception to the exclusionary rule. Currently there are three exceptions to the rule, as explained on http://sc.essortment.com/exclusionaryrul_rmlx.htm To me, its kind of (not exactly) like a combination of both the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine and Good Faith. The police officers will still be in violation of the law (and punished, I would assume) by not k&a based on the opinion, therefore they probably just forgot if they didn't, and we have other channels to deal with those police officers rather than throwing out evidence that they would have found during a search where the police officers did k&a. Whether they had a k&a or not, the evidence would have most likely been found. Thats what I'm thinking they're saying anyway: punish the cop insteading of letting a guilty man walk free.

It'd be an interesting campaign for sure, and would keep the current Foreign Policy versus Civil Policy debate going. What I mean by that is Kerry tried to portray himself as a fix-America domestically guy, and Bush was the strong Foreign Policy guy with problems at home. I think this potential matchup would be the same way. In my experience looking over polls and election results, independents tend to lean toward democrats on civil issues, and toward republicans on foreign policy (at least since 9/11 anyway, not too sure on the data before that). Bush won because of foreign policy, but is McCain strong is on the issue? I'd think so, given his rep and history. Hillary is a much better speaker then Kerry was, and also can put together more coherent arguments. I also expect her to have a much better campaign team, and line her up in the center of issues without looking like a deuchebag like Kerry. So people's confidence will be stronger in Hillary to be a good leader then Kerry. She's still Hillary though, and would have to win over a Democratic base which typically tends to defect to a different party at higher rates than the Republican base, as well as a base that, while more people identify themselves as Democrats, doesn't show up to the polls as well as the Republican base. Her other challenge would be to win over enough independents to make up for that, something with I don't think she'd be able to do versus McCain. The one thing that might kind of turn the tables a bit would be if the campaigning talent in the Republican Party gets split up between McCain, Guiliani, and Gingrich. If that happens, Hillary might be looking at more money to play with and throw around to try to even it up.

Fair enough.