Hfadhad

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mark-sanford-wi...

Pillar of the community this one, a bedrock of moral fibre. With most politicians you can only guess that they'll lie to your face, with this guy there's no guessing needed. Best part is that he's now with the bimbo :D

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tsarnaev-condi...

Apparently he's claiming there's other cell members and unexploded bombs. Obviously law enforcement will work to verify this but before they do anyone care to guess whether it's fact or fiction? I'll lay odds that he's telling the truth because he's probably so doped up he doesn't know to lie or stay silent.

If you don't, look at what the House just passed (again):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_S...

also #CISPA if you use Twitter

Amazingly this time around the vote was somewhat bipartisan in favor of. Trust the government to get together to do the wrong thing:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml

Hopefully Senate Democrats will knock this down again, or barring that a veto by Obama.

If you're a Republican/Democrat who isn't blindly loyal to the party please complain to your state representatives who voted for this.

If you like the government snooping on you whenever they want, disregard.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-budget-hints-sale-larg...

Super quick summary is that the Obama budget is considering selling a very large public utility, turning something state-run into something private and reducing spending. The Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank) approves of this. Even Reagan promoted the idea back in the day. However Republicans are already lining up in opposition to the idea. Why?

Seems to me most Christians haven't even read their Bible, while the truly devote give proper homage to the Prophet.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?f=G&utm_expid...

It's in your book lol.

If Iran spins them quick enough could Iran have a bomb by tomorrow?

From a purely political viewpoint?

Imo Romney should have said something like "I got a little overzealous at a fundraiser, my bad. Likely the Obama campaign is making a big deal of it because <insert attack on economy>..."

His response is allowing Obama's campaign to control the flow of the race as well as making Romney appear shifty/weak (speaking "off the cuff" remark, "for 100%" reply, trying to counter with obscure Obama video nowhere near as effective).

From a purely political standpoint what do you think about the video? Personally I believe the most it will do is sway a small number of voters who were on the fence. However the timing of when to release the video was spot on since it's close enough to still be in the public consciousness come election day but not so close that people will doubt its credibility based solely on timing.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

Only thing I agreed with was expanding nuclear energy capability, which, suprise, Obama does as well (for an example of a politician with a backbone see http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-supp... ).

Almost everything else Mitt Romney suggests is so stupid it burns. Why should the government invest in research into alternative energy sources and alternative energy start ups? Apparently according to Romney all we have to do is eliminate all environmental regulations and by some miracle we'll produce enough oil/coal to be energy independent! Hurray!

Obama's: http://www.barackobama.com/record/on/immigration/

Romney's: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Very brief summaries of each if you don't want to read (though you should):

Obama = enact DREAM Act.

Romney = attract skilled immigrants, try to stop illegal immigration.

"Neither" is also an acceptable answer. Prefer well thought, lengthy answers.

Here's some typical conservative arguments:

1) Smaller government = better government.

2) Government should not intrude on people's choices, i.e no "nanny state".

3) Regulations on business are a bad idea.

4) Free trade between nations is a good idea.

Romney claims to follow 1) but does not. Many of Romney's proposals would actually increase spending. For example see

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense ("Mitt's plan" section)

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade ("confronting China" section)

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration ("secure the borders" section)

Number 2) is again a failure. See

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values ("abortion" and "marriage" sections)

Not to mention that Romney almost certainly supports restrictions on drug use (I also support some restrictions but not all) and other "immoral" activities such as gambling. These are freedom of choice issues and government has no right to decide what I do or to ban things for "my own good".

Number 3) Romney's in line with conservative thinking.

Number 4) is iffy for Romney. For example see

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/latin-america

He seems to be mostly pro free-trade but has some conflicting policies like the ridiculous border fence idea.

So yea or nay, is Romney a conservative? Feel free to add other arguments for/against Romney's conservativeness not included.

Sum from n=1 to n=k of 2^(n-1) * n

using wolframalpha the answer is

(2^k)*k - 2^k + 1

No idea how to get the formula for the sum.

Wouldn't it be wiser to simply tax and regulate it like we do with alcohol and tobacco? Also asking because a decent number of Republicans (not a majority sadly) seem to think it should be legalized.

After 2 minutes of browsing came to this section:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade

Went down to the "confronting China" section and just couldn't stop smacking my forehead. Quotes are taken directly from the site:

1) "Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market"

Increasing government spending on a department that has little to do with China (CBP=Customs and Border Patrol) will surely help. Not only does this go against the Republican philosophy of smaller government, it will do jack diddly to China. The goods are coming over here legally.

2)"Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices"

Yup, more government spending. Legions of lawyers will surely defeat China...

3)"Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices"

What, pray tell, are these measures? Another of life's great mysteries.

4)"Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties"

I'm sure trade wars are good for business.

Feel free to ignore and rant about Obama now :D