r1b1c*

Have conservatives made Obama a household name for the next century by naming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 'Obamacare'?

Will we always be reminded that Obama cared because of that conservative naming act that was done in derision, much like 'the Big Bang' was a joke on the theory of the expansion of the universe proposed by Georges Lemaître? IMO thanx to this conservative act, decades from now, hundreds of millions will talk about Obama everyday. Do you agree? If not, why not?

DC Mayor Opposes Gun Insurance Mandate

WASHINGTON (AP) - District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray's administration does not support a bill that would require gun owners in the nation's capital to carry liability insurance

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid...

-------------

I think that is a VERY GOOD IDEA! It would add an ongoing expense to owning a gun, so people would think twice about buying them, and assuming that the gun they own was used in a crime of some sort, the victims would have ready access to compensation for the damage suffered. As is, if you kill or hurt somebody with a gun, he and his family are left on their own and the kindness of strangers.

Would you support this bill?

If not, why not?

You are required to have car insurance, and cars are used for practical purposes, why not gun insurance when the only purpose for a gun is to hurt people.

Would vote for a Republican that promised to pass this law in my state.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/become-ille...

"How many times have you cursed at drivers crawling along in the fast lane, way below the posted speed limit? It must be one of the most frustrating circumstances you can encounter when driving, not to mention the innate dangers it presents. ...

...The bill proposes that if you drive 10 mph or more below the posted speed limit, while dawdling in the left hand lane, the penalty would be a $60 fine. The law would be in effect for any road with two or more lanes."

He should make the penalty $500 to really deter dumb as people that do that all the time. I'm a progressive liberal libertarian, and generally speaking about as far from a conservative as you can go within the capitalist system. But I would vote for a conservative that promises to pass this law in my state.

Wouldn't you vote for a person you fundamentally disagree with in exchange for fixing something that really irks you?

In November of 2011, the TV show 60 Minutes did a big expose on insider trading within Congress. While everyone else is subject to basic insider trading rules, it turned out that members of Congress were exempt from the rules. And, as you would imagine, many in Congress have access to market-moving, non-public information. And they made use of it. To make lots and lots of money. Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well.

...

with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. Specifically the part that required staffers to post disclosures about their financial transactions, so that the public could make sure there was no insider trading going on. Congress tried to cover up this fairly significant change because they, themselves, claimed that it would pose a "national risk" to have this information public. A national risk to their bank accounts.

more at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222...

----------

So, Congress refuses to pass a law that 90% of the people support (background checks for gun purchases), but UNANIMOUSLY pass a bill that puts them above the law again (and I'm certain 90% would oppose)?

What's up with that?

Lets say a business is selling an asset, a minority offers 1 million for it, they require him to pay 1.5 million, after two months of refusing to sell it to that person for anything less than 1.5 million the would-be buyer withdraws his offer. Ten days later that business sells that asset for 500k to a white man without ever giving the minority would-be buyer a chance to buy it for 1 million.

A business is in business to make money, there is no explanation for this other than discrimination. IMO that is clear, the question is, are they allowed to do this? Is it legal to discriminate in such a manner?

The hard drive has about 300 gb and it's almost full, the backup drive can hold over a Tb.

If I delete a file from the pc's hard drive, will Windows 7 automatic back up also delete this file from the back up drive on the next schedule back up?

I'm thinking of deleting 200 gb of recordings to free up space from the pc, but before I do I'd like to know if then the Win7 back up feature will also delete this from the back up drive. Wouldn't want that to happen.

Would a foreign nation have the right to legalize the production and sale of small chemical weapons to their citizens?

If they do, what would happen if 50% of those weapons made their way into the US?

Would the US have the right to sue those manufacturers or that nation for the damage their weapons did in the US?

If we would have that right, what prevents foreign nations from suing our gun manufacturers or this nation for the damage US made weapons do in their land?

Excerpts from Does your biology influence your vote?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628892.100...

More if you follow the link, but... Your thoughts on this?

====

Personality politics

The researchers concluded that these outward differences were a manifestation of inward traits - specifically openness and conscientiousness, two of the "big five" dimensions of personality that are known to have a strong genetic basis. Summarising these and other findings, they wrote: "In general,liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized" (Political Psychology, vol 29, p 807).

People of different ideologies also differ in their social preferences. As a rule, conservatives are more likely than liberals to prefer white people, straight people and high-status groups. Liberals are more comfortable than conservatives with members of ethnic and sexual minorities. This is borne out in self-reports and, crucially, in psychological tests that measure unconscious attitudes - that is, preferences that operate outside of awareness or control. It is important to note that liberals also unconsciously prefer high-status to low-status groups, just not as much as conservatives do. Stable ideological differences have also been found in moral judgements, with liberals more morally offended by suffering and inequality and conservatives more morally offended by betrayals of the in-group, disrespect for authority and tradition, and signs of sexual or spiritual "impurity". Again, these differences appear to have biological roots: they have been linked to anatomical differences in the size of various brain structures (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol 24, p 1657).

Differences have also been found at the level of cognition and perception. Several studies in the 2003 analysis showed that conservatives have a higher need for "cognitive closure" - wanting to turn uncertainties into certainties and ambiguity into clarity - while liberals had a higher need for cognition itself, enjoying deliberation and mental challenges. This finding was strengthened by a series of studies published this year, which showed that hindering subjects' deliberation, by requiring them to do distractor tasks while filling out surveys, for example, made their opinions and attitudes more conservative.

Conservatives are more likely to report seeing the world as a dangerous place, and again biology may provide an explanation. When faces with ambiguous expressions are flashed onto a screen, conservatives are more likely than liberals to perceive them as angry or threatening rather than sad or neutral. When exposed to threatening images or sudden noises, conservatives react more strongly, showing greater levels of the "eye-blink startle" response and skin conductance.

It goes on. Differences are also seen in measurements of self-control. In one study, participants performed a task that required them to repeatedly press a key when one character was shown to them, but suppress the impulse when another character was shown at the same time. Liberals were better able to control their impulses and showed more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain area associated with cognitive control and self-regulation. Liberal participants turn out to have more grey matter in this region, presumably indicating that they use it more, while conservatives have more grey matter in the right amygdala, an area associated with threat response and intense emotions.

Most controversially, political scientists have begun to search for genetic roots of ideology. For 25 years, we have known about the high heritability of political attitudes, based on studies of twins. Identical twins are much more likely to share political views than fraternal twins, suggesting it is not only their shared environment that is at work but also their shared genes.

More recently, geneticists have begun looking at particular genes that may contribute to ideology. Nobody is suggesting that there are genes "for" liberalism or conservatism, but one gene of interest is the 7R variant of the DRD4 dopamine receptor gene, which has been associated with novelty-seeking behaviour and liberal politics.

Taken together, there is a substantial body of data suggesting that conservatives and liberals really are different tribes, divided not by opinions so much as by temperament and even basic biology. Not surprisingly, the idea has attracted a lot of criticism.

Romney is a good businessman no doubt, he's made hundreds of millions of dollars, he knows a winner when he sees it. But he wont put his own money on his campaign... what does that tell you?

"he (Romney) has put only $150,000 into this year’s run, through a joint gift with his wife Ann to a Republican committee last spring."

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/25/w...

According to the EEOC the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

and then a whole bunch of other things. Other than religion none of that is relevant to this question. I'm interested ONLY on religious based EMPLOYMENT discrimination. Specifically, the law says

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;"

This would mean that one can't use a person's race whether black or white as the basis to deny employment or as a needed requirement for employment. The same would apply to all the other traits mentioned above. Now, except for 'religion' every person in the world must have one of those traits.

As I interpret the law one can not use a person's religion or his religious beliefs in denying employment, or as a requirement for employment. For instance, you can't say "you must be Muslim to work here" or "you can't work here if you are a Muslim". Clearly that would be against the law. Now, my question is can a company legally have/use employment religion/religious discriminatory practices based not on WHICH religion the person has, but WHETHER he/she has a religion of any kind? To clarify, the company would discriminate against any prospective employee because he/she believes in any and all religions. The premise being that people that believe in the supernatural are primitive enough to believe in cuckoo nonsense, and this company would want to hire only the best, more clear minded individuals. It wouldn't matter whether this nonsense is voodoo dolls or some weird planet orbiting the star of Kolob.

Is it legal to discriminate against primitive people?

And if you say no. Then, what interpretation of that law makes it so?

Advanced Fuel Technologies, a division of Celanese Corporation, has developed a process to produce ethanol from hydrocarbon feedstocks at very competitive costs. The process is projected to have a significant cost advantage when compared to fermentation processes, like those used in the corn-ethanol industry. The company estimates it can make ethanol for a cash cost of only $1.50 a gallon. Diluted ethanol that’s blended into gasoline sells for $2.30 a gallon today.

Renewable Fuel Standard stands in the way

The 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard law mandates that escalating volumes of ethanol be blended into gasoline, with the top volume at 15 billion gallons in 2015. And this is why fossil-fuel-based ethanols are effectively blocked from even competing for the market.

Cellulosic vs. natural gas

Celanese is asking Congress to change the law to allow oil refiners to use natural gas-based ethanol as well as corn-based ethanol in the country’s fuel supply. This would help to reduce the costs of producing gasoline and redirect the use of arable land to produce food rather than fuel, the company argues.

http://www.wattagnet.com/Gary_Thornton/Ethanol_pro...

The United States has abundant natural gas.

Why aren’t we using it? Would Romney support natural gas or renewables for ethanol?

They have the same policies, I asked you before "How do they differ" not a one was able to say what the difference was. They HAVE the same policies, we know following Bush's policies were a disaster, why would it be any different under Romney if they are THE SAME POLICIES?

From what I've heard everything he proposes is exactly what Bush did.

What EXACTLY does he propose to do that differs from what Bush did?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^dji+interactiv...

Look at where it was in 08 and where it is today. Bush took it to 6,600 Obama to 13,000+

How is THAT a reflection of a leader that is bad for business?

Does Romney even know how dumb this sounds?

Corporate US has over two trillion in CASH right now, how is THAT bad?

"Oct 11,– 2011, U.S. corporations have record domestic cash assets of around $2 trillion,"

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/...

Why do conservatives say this is Obama's economy when none of Obama's economic initiatives i/e the jobs act, have passed?

Shouldn't we say this is the obstructionist Republican Congress' economy?

If not, why not?

Do you want to live in a nation were companies can pollute freely with no consequences?

Or do you want to live in a nation were companies must live up to our clean air standards?

Do you want to live in a nation that wont tax you and see our infrastructure deteriorate beyond the point of viable repairs?

Or do you want to pay reasonable taxes to pay for the needed maintenance of our roads, bridges and upkeep of our services?

The US was #1 investing in education, we are now #37 behind

# 1 Cuba: 18.7%

# 2 Vanuatu: 11%

# 3 Lesotho: 10.4%

# 4 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 10%

# 5 Yemen: 9.5%

# 6 Brunei: 9.1%

# 7 Mongolia: 9%

# 8 Denmark: 8.5%

# 9 Guyana: 8.4%

# 10 Malaysia: 8.1%

# 11 Cape Verde: 7.9%

= 12 Saint Lucia: 7.7%

= 12 Sweden: 7.7%

= 14 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 7.6%

= 14 Norway: 7.6%

= 14 Barbados: 7.6%

# 17 Israel: 7.5%

# 18 Namibia: 7.2%

# 19 Swaziland: 7.1%

# 20 Kenya: 7%

# 21 New Zealand: 6.7%

# 22 Morocco: 6.5%

= 23 Finland: 6.4%

= 23 Tunisia: 6.4%

= 25 Cyprus: 6.3%

= 25 Bolivia: 6.3%

= 25 Belgium: 6.3%

= 28 Slovenia: 6.1%

= 28 Jamaica: 6.1%

= 30 Belarus: 6%

= 30 Malawi: 6%

= 30 Iceland: 6%

# 33 Lithuania: 5.9%

= 34 Switzerland: 5.8%

= 34 Latvia: 5.8%

= 34 Portugal: 5.8%

= 37 Austria: 5.7%

= 37 United States:5.7%

Or do you want our kids to go back to being #1?

Will you choose Flip Flopney for less taxes, or President Obama for a great US again?

(Bolivia! Bolivia is spending more per capita on educating their kids than we are... Bolivia!)

The Greatest generation fought WWII, build the superhighway infrastructure of this nation, rebuilt Europe through the Marshall plan and paid a highest tax rate of 94% during the war. They continued paying a highest tax rate of 91% until 1963.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-indivi...

The Romney led Whiniest generation is facing a highest tax rate of 35% and nothing else. This is just too much for the Romney whiners.

Are Romney and Co. 'the Whiniest generation'?

Federal Czars appointed by Obama are administrators without any special powers, and all of these posts are later confirmed by the Senate.

In Michigan under Republican governor Snyder Public Act 4 was passed and enacted.

About the law;

"Emergency Managers have been appointed in four different Michigan cities: Flint, Benton Harbor, Ecorse, and Pontiac. Additionally, Emergency Managers have taken over school districts in Detroit and Highland Park. Emergency Managers are invested with dictatorial powers to remove elected officials, cut pay, sell public assets, and tear up union contracts."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/musk-j02...

"Under PA 4, EMs, who are appointed by the governor, can “exercise any power or authority of any officer, employee, department, board, commission or other similar entity of the local government whether elected or appointed.” "

http://www.thenation.com/article/166297/scandal-mi...

None of these posts are confirmed by anybody, in fact they become dictators and do as they wish. Like selling a whole covered stadium valued upwards of $500 million on 130 acres downtown for $500k to themselves. Check out Pontiac's czar and the city Silverdome stadium he now co-owns.

Anyways, if Conservatives are against appointed Czars, how come they don't complain about any of these Republican Czars?

These are three of the most recent conservative questions posted on YA

Is Obama's campaign slogan appropriate, considering we can't go much farther backward?

Better approval rating Yigit or Obama?

Are people ready for an honest and frank discussion about Obama's similarity to a skid-mark in my drawers?

Most of their questions are along these lines. Why is that?

I enjoy spending time on YA.

I support gay rights including the right to marry.

I detest seeing male homosexual activity.

This guy http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=5hrslEDUaa

has two guys kissing and I can't help but seeing the avatar while in YA. Just blocked the guy to no avail, the avatar is still there.

How do I block stuff like this?

I'm not offended by it, I'm disgusted by it. I don't want to see it, having him force this on me bothers me. Again, how do I block this abusive and bothersome avatar?