dmagicglock

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform interesting poll about people and their support or lack there of for healthcare. It looks like those that make less want it handed to them and those who make more don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare.

I found the poll on ABC.com so not just sodahead users

although its not a "scientific" poll... in a recent poll it showed that out of over 3000 people, 84% felt obama went too far in criticizing the police. http://www.sodahead.com/question/514929/did-obama-go-too-far-in-criticizing-the-police/

a buddy of mine use to ride a 2002 ninja zx6r (which is what became the zzr in 2005) and it was a very quick bike, felt comfortable to ride and handled great. When I bought my r6 i was this close >. to buying a zzr600 but decided not to since it wasn't fuel injected...

Everyone can armchair quarterback this, but the police officer has a split second to make a decision sometimes. Lets say he "assumes" that the guy isn't a burglar, well by not following protocol he may end up getting shot. Its easy to look back and have a few days to analyze the situation, but he reacted to how he was trained within the limited time he had to do so. At the end of the day the whole situation could have been avoided if Mr. Gates would have just showed his damn ID. Aside from that, I don't think the president should be commenting on a local matter, but he is biased and has a friendship with Mr. Gates. I just hope that he informs himself more on political matters before deciding on them, than he does on local cambridge matters.

no really, i've listened to his radio show on and off for years (when dan patrick isn't more interesting) and he's said that to many callers.

^^ he was talking about the get off my phone thing the other day, its an inside joke that he's been doing for 10 years now, its in reference to an old radio talk show host that him and his friend would call (Bob Grant).

yeah as far as I know they didn't have a fuel injected 600 until 03 (the r6) and as bmw said, the 600r has never been fuel injected. Its kind of like the ninja 600 zzr, kawi made that up to 08 and it was still carbed. Look for an 03 sv650s, I think those were fuel injected that year, and they make full fairing kits for them and you could definitely get one for around the 3k mark.

i will honor him by pouring (spraying) out some wd-40 on my door hinges today

^ lol back to original thread topic, found this, his book is new york times best seller for 5 weeks at number 1 for paperback nonfiction http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/books/bestseller/bestpapernonfiction.html?_r=1&ref=bestseller and here's some reviews from amazon.com for those interested in reading the book! http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/product-reviews/1439168571/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

well if we're in the business of making statements more accurate. In 2007, Michigan had the largest number of Iraqi immigrants (36,172, or 35.3 percent), followed by California (16,715, or 16.3 percent). Together, these two states accounted for 51.7 percent (52,887) of all Iraqi-born immigrants. Illinois and Arizona also had large Iraqi-born populations. Hardly half a million?

correct but i think his argument is that under their style of government, success isn't possible. I think his frame of reference is that under that government, success wouldn't be possible, so applying possibility of success to a different model is like comparing apples to oranges?

The bill of rights is living document but not the constitution, and many people fought against the idea of a bill of rights. Just because prostitutes are legal in nevada doesn't make it moral, IMO anyways. God judges morality, our conscience is provided to us to lead is in the right direction. When you talk religion people freak out because they think seperation of church and state, but that was intended to prevent our government from having a state run church like "the Church of England" rather than not using religious principles to help shape the morality of our government. None the less that is a seperate issue and I digress. Here's some info regarding the argument against a bill of rights. Many people thought that if you started specifically naming rights, then one would assume that a right is not protected unless mentioned, but if you're free then you are free... so no need for a bill of rights? "The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different: Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[8] Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[9] Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

well infrastucture is mostly a state/local issue not a federal issue so you can try and argue its some form of socialism all you want, but the responsibility is not intended to be that of the federal government. As far as solutions for generations differs, I can agree that times have changed, but your statement is something that almost mimics people thinking that the constitution is a living document that can be interpreted differently depending on the time period. I disagree and I don't think that the founding fathers had that in mind either. You must subject yourself to a moral authority and it has to be unchanging, otherwise the constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. You can't change morality based on circumstance, either it is good in principal then and always or it is wrong in principal then and always. Otherwise our moral compass would be broken and I think the same morality should apply to legislation and government. Big government wasn't good then and still proves to be bad now. And you know one of the ways the budget was balanced when a dem was in office and (you had a republican majority in the congress (which makes the "congressional budget") : By lowering medicare, welfare and social security benefits

well lets start with the definition of socialism: socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm| noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. • policy or practice based on this theory. • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. That being said, creating infrastructure which is typically outsourced to blacktop and paving companies, would not be socialism because you're paying money to a private entity to provide that infrastructure. Also, employing police to ensure community safety or military isn't necessarily controlling means of production but more or less protecting your investment. I'm not advocating no government or anarchy, but i think just as our founding fathers did, a federal government should be small as possible. "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

^ your comp fails at interwebz, it comes up on my comp just fine, but since you can't see it.... here's the link! http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

wouldn't competition in a true free market provide the service to those who arent willing to provide it. For ex: SafeAuto provides insurance to people with terrible driving records when other insurance companies are more worried about profit and would probably deny that same person auto coverage. Yet say, a safe auto is willing to accept a smaller profit margin to run their business model.

haha saw this and even tho' I know I should just let this thread die, I couldn't resist posting it. It's a picture for a post card the republicans wanted to send out in response to the democratic healthcare. It was blocked by the dems because they felt it was misleading, anyways I'll let you be the judge!

come on Justin, seriously!? lol I don't think you'd like it tho', he refers to things like the constitution, and founding fathers, he does kind of diss on socialism and universal healthcare and the excessive spending that we've burden ourselves and future generations with... here's a little preview "When Americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. They are saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure."

i thought that was f'in hilarious!

do you have a gsxr currently? If so I think a 600r would be a step down. I'd find an older r6 (03 or newer) thats fuel injected and you'll probably noticed a big difference in performance without sacrificing a lot of cost.

I just picked this book up yesterday at borders and it's an awesome book! It's a short book, only like 150 pages, and he brings up some great points, sometimes its hard to believe all the shitty legislation thats been passed right before our eyes until you see it in print. He was great in this book about being non partisan and clearly points out the leeching of America by both parties. Anyone else read this? If not I'd suggest you check it out!

"In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense. An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund." Commons sense says they're just trying to screw her any way they can? Basically he's saying if she was a nobody she could try and raise all the money she wanted, but since she is a public figure, she's not allowed to cause thats not fair to all the other poor schmucks out there? Its okay for Levi to cash in on the families fame, but Sarah can't do it herself when she needs help footing the bill for a bunch of BS ethics complaints, this one included. Should I file an ethics complaint against incumbent politicians because they can raise more campaign money than I can because they're already well known? Would she be sued if she used her notoriety to raise more charitable contributions (to say the United Way for example) than some normal joe schmoe? Its okay to use your notoriety for the betterment of society, but not the betterment of yourself?

I love the nuge! funny thing about him is he looks like a "hillbilly white trash rocker" and the guy is an absolute genius and well versed beyond most if not all politicians! good post, +1 for you

if she has a kid, that just means she puts out