StrangeSox

Increasing polarization of the Senate: Both sides have gotten more polarized, but moderate Republicans have pretty much disappeared.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) Like it or not, propelling your team to the playoffs has always been a key component of the MVP award. It is not the best offensive player, or the highest WAR award. The unmeasurables have always been a large part of the award. Well for a long time a lot of the stuff was unmeasurable (immeasurable?), but now we can quantify it.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) I love my Kindle paperwhite. I'd much rather read on a e-reader than a tablet. I've still got the original nook, but that's my opinion as well. Color touch-screen e-ink would be awesome if they can figure it out, but until then I'd rather have the dedicated reader.

I only understood the first sentence of that post. I wouldn't be shocked if ultimately that's what they do.

I don't know why,i have zero interest in the cod games these days.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) Everyone should be a protected class. That would be the most equal thing to do, right? Do you reject the idea of constitutionally protected classes?

It's not, but it's still a civil rights issue. There's still no reason to move civil rights to the state level.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) There are better ways to govern efficiently over a collective group of states than to just cede all power to a centralized government. Yes, things like defense, inter-state travel, currency, etc. are all things that are more easily handled on a national scale. But i completely disagree that we HAVE to nationalize every issue, especially by law. If Colorado wants to legalize pot and keep homosexuals from being a protected class, why the hell can't they do that? If you don't like the laws, move out. I don't like Illinois' tax laws, and I should move out if I don't like them. There's no reason that national views (of a select group of people) have to suppress local ones. The EU doesn't work like that. France can be France, Germany can be Germany, etc, even though they are a collective economic and political "nation." We fought a war over States' Rights to treat people unequally, amended our constitution, passed additional laws and sent in troops to enforce it. I see absolutely no reason civil rights should be federalized. "Vote with your feet" is a method that those with the resources and ability to move can use and only if their political dislike trumps all sorts of other life issues like friends, family and employment.

The actual impact on the federal budget is negligible because the group for Medicare is more-or-less 65-100+. If the Medicare group was 20-66, then cutting out the 65 and 66 year olds would mean dropping your most expensive members. But by cutting out the lowest end of your group, you're not going to impact your costs that much. Private insurance isn't really affordable for people who are 65, though, so they're going to be taking the hit (or be forced to keep working, if they can, to maintain healthcare, if they have it). http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42683

Ugh Democrats are openly talking about raising the Medicare age as part of a "grand bargain" http://boldprogressives.org/democratic-sen...anced-and-fair/ Never mind that the CBO has studied this and found that it's impact would be negligible because you're cutting out the group that tends to be the healthiest. This would be terrible for most seniors.

Nate Silver makes the stats case for Trout http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ADCFC814371494F

So it looks like another Gaza war might be breaking out. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/world/meast/....html?hpt=hp_c1 The IDF and Hamas are trolling each other on Twitter. It is bizarre. https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson https://twitter.com/AlqassamBrigade

I'm saying that those disagreements did continue. Jefferson and Hamilton (and the factions they represented) were at each other's throats for years. The easiest example was Hamilton's push for a US Mint and national bank and Jefferson's and Madison's opposition to it on Constitutional grounds. I don't think we're really disagreeing much here. The people who wrote and signed the documents couldn't even agree to its limits. So as you said, it's foolish to say "This is what the Constitution means" as if there is or ever was some singular, objective meaning.

But that's where I disagree. Even after ratification, Hamilton and Jefferson had very, very strong disagreements on the proper role of the federal government. They don't exactly mirror today's, but they come strikingly close. Jefferson wanted a minimalist federal government with an agrarian society, Hamilton wanted a strong central government that actively invested in industry. I think Jefferson would agree with framing the Constitution as limiting the government as much as reasonably possible but that Hamilton would not.

I think Hamilton would have disagreed with that description of the constitution.

I'm actually not sure how that works.

It's also hard to say that a complex political document that was debated and eventually agreed to by many different people had one specific or well-defined goal. It's not like there weren't intense political disagreements about what the government should do back then. Hamilton and Jefferson had essentially the same arguments before and after ratification.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) Same. I had a couple software developer coworkers from China who were here on work visas. It took them 7+ years to get citizenship. At one point, the company didn't fill out one piece of visa paperwork correctly and one of the guys was nearly deported. One of my co-workers has been here since the 80's. The country he came from hasn't existed in about 20 years. He's having a hell of a time trying to get his citizenship.

That's the policy they pursued when they started relocating people out of the large public housing projects. I googled up this article from last year: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4831798...rt-details.html

you can check out this recent study on the impact of relocation: http://www.urban.org/publications/412523.html

I might be something along the lines of what was discussed in this thread

I know this came up way back when the banks were signing that bogus settlement agreement with the various states' attorneys over their fraudulent foreclosures, but turns out that the banks will be using investor money to write down mortgages they may or may not own: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/que...e-to-roost.html

Is that a Pat Buchanan quote from the 60's?

OTOH the states may end up forcing the Fed's hands on the marijuana issue.