Search forums

Forums

Export thread

The crazy state race continues...

Mar 7, 2011#1

Dave

Why is it all of these insane things always seem to come from the right?

In first place in the Race to the Crazy is ARIZONA with multiple examples! Second is Wisconsin and no there's a fight between South Dakota & New Hampshire for third!

South Dakota for their batshit insane laws on abortion and now New Hampshire for wanting to stop college kids from voting since they lack "life experiences". Yup, Republicans want to prevent college kids from voting because (a) they vote liberal and (2) they just vote their feelings.

Mar 7, 2011#2

Covar

That's just stupid, everyone knows college kids don't vote anyway.

Mar 7, 2011#3

sixpackshaker

If college kids did not vote, I could not buy a beer in this town.

Mar 7, 2011#4

Espy

I know quite a few college kids.

It terrifies me that they vote.

I also know quite a few not-college kids.

They are equally terrifying.

So basically it's all gonna pan out bad. :/

Mar 7, 2011#5

Krisken

Yeah, Arizona really blew us away with that one. Even Wisconsin's new provision in the budget bill to give unclaimed dogs to various institutions to use for medical experiments doesn't compare to 'let the transplant people die'.

Mar 7, 2011#6

sixpackshaker

I never understood why those agencies that use animals in their studies don't raise their own. Just something sounds a little sinister in taking an adoptable dog out of the pound just to preform a vivisection on him.

Mar 7, 2011#7

phil

Dave said:
Why is it all of these insane things always seem to come from the right?

In first place in the Race to the Crazy is ARIZONA with multiple examples! Second is Wisconsin and no there's a fight between South Dakota & New Hampshire for third!

South Dakota for their batshit insane laws on abortion and now New Hampshire for wanting to stop college kids from voting since they lack "life experiences". Yup, Republicans want to prevent college kids from voting because (a) they vote liberal and (2) they just vote their feelings.

Holy shit when you said they vote liberal and with their feelings I thought you were putting words in his mouth. Nope! Because I guess voting liberal is foolish? Jesus fucking Christ.

I can't even process this right now.

Mar 7, 2011#8

Krisken

It's like someone saw this guy typing on Yahoo articles and thought "Hey, wouldn't it be funny to be represented by this guy in our government?"

Mar 7, 2011#9

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
I never understood why those agencies that use animals in their studies don't raise their own. Just something sounds a little sinister in taking an adoptable dog out of the pound just to preform a vivisection on him.

They generally don't do either. They almost always buy them from suppliers that specialize in providing lab animals with very specific traits for very specific uses. The main reason being that stray animals are not well characterized, and so studies can't control enough variables to get good data. You really need to have 10-50 of essentially the same animal to even begin to think about doing controlled studies.

If you've ever wondered where and how to buy laboratory grade animals, look no further than:

http://laboratoryanimalsciencebuyer...egory=Animal Model Suppliers&category_id=2806

Or do a google search for "Animal model"

Notably animal models are very expensive. Common lab mice are around $35-$50 each. Dogs, cats, and pigs are much more expensive.

Mar 7, 2011#10

Krisken

You're talking about reputable science. I think we all know that isn't always the case.

Mar 7, 2011#11

Ravenpoe

He has a point. College kids lack the life experience to make informed decisions like that. Young people in general, actually, so lets just raise the voting age to thirty.

You can't really understand the importance of economy without owning your own home, so let's throw that in too. And women... Well, they are too emotional to vote. And we all know minorities can't be trusted with that kind of decision.

I see no problem in this, it's pretty simple. You can vote, so long as you're a white male landowner over thirty.

Mar 7, 2011#12

Tress

Why was Georgia left off this list? I think eliminating drivers' licenses while making miscarriages illegal deserves some consideration.

Mar 7, 2011#13

ScytheRexx

Okay that is it, I am moving to Canada or Finland, this place has gone bonkers.

Mar 7, 2011#14

phil

ScytheRexx said:
Okay that is it, I am moving to Canada or Finland, this place has gone bonkers.

If palin even has a chance of winning in 2012 I'd seriously consider moving. This stuff here is extra incentive to look into the steps for it.

Mar 7, 2011#15

Chibibar

You know what is interesting? The Republican are trying to regain control, but now they do have control (in the Senate) all the weird stuff are coming out of the woodwork FROM Republican. I know it is harsh to say all GOP are the same, but dang, they are not making it any easier to tell them apart

Mar 7, 2011#16

Krisken

Chibibar said:
You know what is interesting? The Republican are trying to regain control, but now they do have control (in the ~~Senate~~ House) all the weird stuff are coming out of the woodwork FROM Republican. I know it is harsh to say all GOP are the same, but dang, they are not making it any easier to tell them apart

Fixed that bit for you.

Mar 7, 2011#17

Chibibar

Thanks. I thought they also control the Senate now.

Mar 7, 2011#18

Jiarn

ScytheRexx said:
Okay that is it, I am moving to Canada or Finland, this place has gone bonkers.

Stop the United States, you want to get off?

Mar 7, 2011#19

Krisken

Facebook status:
Me: So, who wants to talk politics? *ducks*
Friend: Nooooooooooo
Me: Oddly enough, people are generally congenial on my wall, even when we disagree. Probably because I'm a socialist pinko commie fascist freedom hating protest supporter.
Friend 2: Vive le France!!! (runs away)
Friend 1: So, why do you hate America?
Me: lol, I love America, I just don't know where it went!

Mar 7, 2011#20

DarkAudit

phil said:
If palin even has a chance of winning in 2012 I'd seriously consider moving. This stuff here is extra incentive to look into the steps for it.

Not even Fox takes Palin's chances seriously. When they suspended Gingrich and Santorum because they planned on running in 2012, they didn't suspend Palin or Huckabee.

When all these teabaggers were running, they kept screaming about the sanctity of the Constitution. The first thing they did once they got into office was piss all over it in full view of the public.

What gets me is there's no one in these staffs who dares to tell these morons the truth. No one stepping up and saying, "this will never pass, it will make you and the state look stupid and insane" before these bills ever get drafted.

Mar 7, 2011#21

Chibibar

DarkAudit said:
Not even Fox takes Palin's chances seriously. When they suspended Gingrich and Santorum because they planned on running in 2012, they didn't suspend Palin or Huckabee.

When all these teabaggers were running, they kept screaming about the sanctity of the Constitution. The first thing they did once they got into office was piss all over it in full view of the public.

What gets me is there's no one in these staffs who dares to tell these morons the truth. No one stepping up and saying, "this will never pass, it will make you and the state look stupid and insane" before these bills ever get drafted.

They are not sharing the community juice!

Mar 7, 2011#22

North_Ranger

ScytheRexx said:
Okay that is it, I am moving to Canada or Finland, this place has gone bonkers.

You can sleep with Krisken on the balcony.

I am confused, however... The article makes it sound like that college students can't vote in their place of residence (i.e. where they are officially living; I had to go vote in Satakunta during my first university year because I was still officially booked there instead of where I lived. Long story.). And you guys don't have to prove your identity to vote? That was a bit strange. I had to flash a driver's license (or equivalent) when I last went voting.

Or did I misunderstand something?

Disenfranchising college students, though, because they vote liberal? Okay, can we then also stop old people from voting because they just vote because of "their feelings", too?

Mar 7, 2011#23

Krisken

The constitution makes any cost to vote illegal. Because of this (and because no one will allow the government to pay for ID's and it would be hard for seniors, homeless, etc to get these ID's), it is a contentious issue.

Mar 7, 2011#24

AshburnerX

I know you have to have ID in my state.

Mar 7, 2011#25

Tress

AshburnerX said:
I know you have to have ID in my state.

California too.

Mar 7, 2011#26

Krisken

Did you have to pay for it?

Mar 7, 2011#27

strawman

In Michigan they ask for ID, but you aren't required to show it. If you don't show it then you sign an affidavit, and your votes go to the ballot box, while the affidavit goes into a separate pile.

If they discover after the fact that the affidavit is falsified, they can prosecute you for election tampering, but since they can't mark the ballot or figure out which one was yours, the vote is still counted.

The affidavits aren't checked unless the election is challenged.

Mar 7, 2011#28

Sara_2814

North_Ranger said:
You can sleep with Krisken on the balcony.

I am confused, however... The article makes it sound like that college students can't vote in their place of residence (i.e. where they are officially living; I had to go vote in Satakunta during my first university year because I was still officially booked there instead of where I lived. Long story.). And you guys don't have to prove your identity to vote? That was a bit strange. I had to flash a driver's license (or equivalent) when I last went voting.

Or did I misunderstand something?

I think this may depend on the state. When I was in college, I registered to vote in my college town. However, I lived there year-round so that may have made it easier. I was also in the same state (Michigan) as my "home" address (albeit 400+ miles away), so out-of-state students may not have had it quite so easy.

I don't remember if I had to show ID in Michigan, but in Nebraska you tell them your name and address and they cross you off a list of registered voters. So it's kinda-sorta asking for ID. I don't know what happens if you're not on the list, since I've always been a registered voter (you can do that when you get your driver's license). But the US has a history of discrimination in voting, so voting access is a sensitive issue.

North_Ranger said:
Disenfranchising college students, though, because they vote liberal? Okay, can we then also stop old people from voting because they just vote because of "their feelings", too?

LOL! Considering how many adults I know who do just that, they believe any "truth" that appeals to their fear and ignorance without researching it to find out if it actually is true, I'd trust most college students to make better decisions. At least they are being exposed to other ideas in classes and probably interacting with people with other view points on a daily basis.

Mar 7, 2011#29

Krisken

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
In Michigan they ask for ID, but you aren't required to show it. If you don't show it then you sign an affidavit, and your votes go to the ballot box, while the affidavit goes into a separate pile.

If they discover after the fact that the affidavit is falsified, they can prosecute you for election tampering, but since they can't mark the ballot or figure out which one was yours, the vote is still counted.

The affidavits aren't checked unless the election is challenged.

Thanks for that FLP. The reason for the affidavit clause is because of Amendment 24, which states

Amendment 24 said:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Oddly enough, the Constitution does not grant voting as a "right". I found this odd.

Mar 7, 2011#30

Espy

Krisken said:
Oddly enough, the Constitution does not grant voting as a "right". I found this odd.

Isn't that because it really was treated as a privilege at the time?

Mar 7, 2011#31

Krisken

Yeah, but I figured by the time the 24th Amendment came about they would have added that clause.

Mar 7, 2011#32

strawman

Krisken said:
Oddly enough, the Constitution does not grant voting as a "right". I found this odd.

We started as a republic, and voting, particularly who voted, was determined by the states (and still largely is). People still harbored ideas that only landowners should be able to vote, and certainly women should not be able to vote.

Conflicts somewhat with the Boston tea party event - no taxation without representation. We still taxed all those people that couldn't vote in the beginning.

I'm not fully convinced that even today voting is a right. However, the courts have struck down most laws that discriminate, therefore simply by being unable to enact laws that bar some from voting, we've given it to everyone. At that point the amendment kicks in - if they are permitted to vote, then no one can make it difficult or costly to do so.

Its one of many "rights" we citizens are granted by court rulings - and is similar to the way people are fighting to have gay marriage accepted, through the courts, rather than by amendment. While homosexuals may never have the "right" to marry, it may be that no one else will have the right to deny them marriage, and the effect in the end is much the same.

Mar 7, 2011#33

Espy

I don't think I would scream and cry if we said only taxpayers could vote.

I can't think of anyone who, in one way or the other doesn't pay taxes though on some level.

Mar 7, 2011#34

Krisken

I sure as hell would.

Mar 7, 2011#35

Tress

I don't see any kind of realistic difference between a citizen of the U.S. and a taxpayer... so why bother making a distinction for voting eligibility? Now, if you restrict it to income tax or property tax, then it gets really dicey.

Mar 7, 2011#36

MindDetective

If taxpayers could vote, wouldn't that actually lower the voting age?

Mar 7, 2011#37

Krisken

Depending on what they mean by "tax payer", yes or no.

Mar 7, 2011#38

Espy

Krisken said:
I sure as hell would.

Well I sure as hell wouldn't make a tongue in cheek post about how everyone pays taxes on something these days would I?

Added at: 18:40

MindDetective said:
If taxpayers could vote, wouldn't that actually lower the voting age?

Yes.

Mar 7, 2011#39

Krisken

Sorry Espy. I think the last week dealing with FB comments has been enough to kill my ability to tell snark from the real deal.

Mar 7, 2011#40

Espy

I'm 89% snark and 11% Sugar cookies.

Mar 7, 2011#41

Krisken

We need more cookies. Definitely more cookies!

Mar 7, 2011#42

MindDetective

Espy said:
I'm 89% snark and 11% Sugar cookies.

Meta-snark!

Mar 7, 2011#43

strawman

I'M A SNARK I'M A SNARK SUCK MY POST I'M A SNAAAAAAAAAAARK

Mar 7, 2011#44

Espy

Krisken said:
We need more cookies. Definitely more cookies!

Dammit now I want a cookie.

All I have is ice cream. Which is good but theres something about a sugar cookie that I just love.
Added at: 19:08
EDIT: Probably the sugar.

Mar 7, 2011#45

strawman

I'm more partial to shortbread cookies.

Butter is an elegant sugar, from a more civilized age.

Mar 8, 2011#46

Frankie Williamson

ScytheRexx said:
Okay that is it, I am moving to Canada or Finland, this place has gone bonkers.

Our government is watching and taking notes. We're not any better.

Mar 8, 2011#47

strawman

I'm still waiting for all the people who promised to leave if bush was elected, then those who promised to leave if he was re-elected, and then those who promised to leave if Obama was elected to finally leave.

Mar 8, 2011#48

sixpackshaker

So, if only taxpayers vote...

No vote for stay at home moms.

Mar 8, 2011#49

Covar

sixpackshaker said:
So, if only taxpayers vote...

No vote for stay at home moms.

State sales tax.

No voter ID here in North Carolina. Not sure about residency voting for college students, as I've been living off campus.

Mar 8, 2011#50

Chibibar

There is voter registration (you get ID) in Texas. no cost.

Mar 8, 2011#51

Espy

Are there people that really think the only way you pay taxes is on a paycheck? Every state is different but it's not going to be easy to find someone that isn't paying a tax on something.

Mar 8, 2011#52

Krisken

Espy said:
Are there people that really think the only way you pay taxes is on a paycheck? Every state is different but it's not going to be easy to find someone that isn't paying a tax on something.

Can you imagine everyone at the polling office having to bring something that proves they paid taxes? Egads, any polling station in the city would be a damn mess.
"Make sure that isn't from out of state!"
"How do we know you didn't dig that out of a trash can?"

There will always be excuses made to try to make people not vote.

Mar 8, 2011#53

Covar

Krisken said:
Can you imagine everyone at the polling office having to bring something that proves they paid taxes? Egads, any polling station in the city would be a damn mess.
"Make sure that isn't from out of state!"
"How do we know you didn't dig that out of a trash can?"

There will always be excuses made to try to make people not vote.

Not to mention that whole 24th ammendment.

I think what Chibi said about TX is the right way to go about it, free picture ID with every voter registration.

Mar 8, 2011#54

Espy

Krisken said:
Can you imagine everyone at the polling office having to bring something that proves they paid taxes? Egads, any polling station in the city would be a damn mess.
"Make sure that isn't from out of state!"
"How do we know you didn't dig that out of a trash can?"

There will always be excuses made to try to make people not vote.

Well, like I said, my initial comment was just a tongue in cheek remark about how EVERYONE pays taxes on something, even those who don't own land or a home or are under 18. Yet it seems like some think only people with paychecks pay any taxes which is remarkably untrue...
Added at: 09:21
I also vote for free ID with registration. I have no problem with the state providing something like that if you need it, especially if it helps with voter fraud and makes things easier.

Mar 8, 2011#55

Chibibar

Covar said:
Not to mention that whole 24th ammendment.

I think what Chibi said about TX is the right way to go about it, free picture ID with every voter registration.

Just an ID, no picture.

Mar 8, 2011#56

Krisken

I'm onboard with getting a voter ID when you register. I think the whole voter fraud epidemic is ginned up by the right to make it appear more prevalent than it is. At least this would shut 'em up already.

Mar 8, 2011#57

Chibibar

The Id is helpful. It contains info like which "section" and stuff. so you can find where in the world you are suppose to go to vote!

Mar 8, 2011#58

Covar

Chibibar said:
Just an ID, no picture.

hmm, I don't think it would really matter to much. Just as long as you're required to have it on you at the polling place.

Mar 8, 2011#59

Dei

sixpackshaker said:
So, if only taxpayers vote...

No vote for stay at home moms.

Married, filing jointly = technically I'm paying income taxes, even if it's all technically my "husband's income"

Mar 8, 2011#60

SpecialKO

NJ has free voter registration cards.

Which they don't check, of course.

All they do is ask you for the name and address of your registration address and sign a statement of intent. Which really is shit that someone could have pulled out of a trash-bin.

They could check your signature against past signatures...except that the official voter registration records at polling stations have incredibly stupid layouts that show you how you signed in previous years before you sign for this year.

Mar 8, 2011#61

Dave

Now Iowa wants to get involved!

State Republicans want to get rid of preschool and replace it with scholarships. What this will effectively do is stop the poor and middle class kids from being able to go.

What the FUCK is up with Republicans lately? I guess it should be noted that they really hate minorities, women and kids. How the FUCK are they getting elected?

Mar 8, 2011#62

Dei

Well, I would consider that crazier if I didn't have to pay for pre-school out of my own pocket in Colorado already. I'm amazed that it's state funded anywhere, since it's really not a necessary thing.

Mar 8, 2011#63

SpecialKO

Dave said:
What the FUCK is up with Republicans lately? I guess it should be noted that they really hate minorities, women and kids. How the FUCK are they getting elected?

Because they've somehow convinced their base that the only way to afford the tax cuts to the rich that will save the economy is if the regular joe learns how to sacrifice.

Mar 8, 2011#64

Espy

People don't have to pay for sending their kids to pre-school in Iowa?

Mar 8, 2011#65

Dave

Espy said:
People don't have to pay for sending their kids to pre-school in Iowa?

Nope. At least not before. It's because a lot of the smaller communities and inner cities can't afford it. But we can't have that.

Mar 8, 2011#66

sixpackshaker

SpecialKO said:
Because they've somehow convinced their base that the only way to afford the tax cuts to the rich that will save the economy is if the regular joe learns how to sacrifice.

No, they win because dey gonna save dem unborn babies. Then fuck em all after that...

Mar 8, 2011#67

Espy

I know a ton of low income folks, some relatives that pay to send their kids to pre-school. I never knew pre-school had become a government must pay thing for folks.

Mar 8, 2011#68

Tress

Espy said:
I know a ton of low income folks, some relatives that pay to send their kids to pre-school. I never knew pre-school had become a government must pay thing for folks.

Same here. I'm not impressed by Iowa's entry. That law just makes it like every other state, except there's a chance for scholarships.

Mar 8, 2011#69

Covar

Espy said:
I know a ton of low income folks, some relatives that pay to send their kids to pre-school. I never knew pre-school had become a government must pay thing for folks.

would it just be school then?

Mar 8, 2011#70

SpecialKO

Rep Peter King (R. Long Island) may be working towards the New York entry.

He wants to hold Congressional hearings to "asses the extent of radicalization" in American Muslim communities. While we haven't reached full crazytown yet, this is a guy who is on record saying that there has been "insufficient cooperation" by American Muslims with law enforcement, despite evidence to the contrary. He also mentioned that he thought there were "too many mosques" in the US.

Also, his current witness-list? No law enforcement, no terrorism experts, no cultural experts, just Congress Reps and one conservative Muslim medical doctor.

Mar 8, 2011#71

Chibibar

Are these the "crazy tea party" Republican?

Mar 8, 2011#72

Tress

Rep. King is a member of the Douche Party, which has no official affiliation with the Tea Party.

Mar 8, 2011#73

SpecialKO

Tress said:
Rep. King is a member of the Douche Party, which has no official affiliation with the Tea Party.

Yeah, King is more of a classic neoconservative. Likes big military spending and aggressive foreign policy, likes tax cuts and bailouts for the rich, thought the Patriot Act was the best thing ever, hates the "gay agenda", believes in the Magic Anti-Tiger Stick (scroll down), and was a fervent admirer and proponent of all things IRA for almost three decades until they decided to oppose the invasion of Iraq.

Mar 8, 2011#74

Chibibar

woo the federal is joining in (well not crazy per se)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040771-503544.html
They want to switch environmental friendly product for Styrofoam!!

Mar 10, 2011#75

Dave

Ooh! FLORIDA is making a run!!

The republicans there want to make it a CLASS 1 FELONY to....

take pictures of farms.

Mar 10, 2011#76

Krisken

Pfft, penny ante shit. The Michigan Governor wants to have the power to remove elected officials.

Mar 10, 2011#77

sixpackshaker

would make it a first-degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner.

Would it be a crime for me to knock on the door at 6am to ask for a signature, while I'm on my morning bike ride?

Mar 10, 2011#78

Jiarn

Arizona = Not running for craziest state: Tells Palin "Stay the hell out!"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/palin-gets-harsh-criticism-out-west/#more-149850

Mar 10, 2011#79

Espy

New rule: Unless your political opponent is part of part of the KKK or a terrorist organization or something along those lines calling them an "extremist" makes you have to roll a "stupid political rhetoric" check.

Mar 10, 2011#80

Covar

our state just continues to by privately corrupt.

Mar 10, 2011#81

DarkAudit

Espy said:
New rule: Unless your political opponent is part of part of the KKK or a terrorist organization or something along those lines calling them an "extremist" makes you have to roll a "stupid political rhetoric" check.

So calling Peter King a "terrorist sympathizer" is perfectly fine now. Argue semantics all you want, Congressman, but you've reveled in your support of the IRA for years.

Mar 10, 2011#82

Espy

DarkAudit said:
So calling Peter King a "terrorist sympathizer" is perfectly fine now. Argue semantics all you want, Congressman, but you've reveled in your support of the IRA for years.

Who and what are you talking about and to? Combined with my post this makes zero sense. Unless I recently got elected to congress and supported the IRA.

Then it would make perfect sense.

Mar 10, 2011#83

DarkAudit

Espy said:
Who and what are you talking about and to? Combined with my post this makes zero sense. Unless I recently got elected to congress and supported the IRA.

Then it would make perfect sense.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY). The jackass running the anti-Muslim hearings right now. He makes no secret of his support for the IRA, but dismisses accusations that this makes him the "palling around with terrorists" sort.

Mar 10, 2011#84

SpecialKO

EDIT: nvm, DA answered first.

Mar 10, 2011#85

Espy

Uh... ok. Go nuts I guess?

Mar 10, 2011#86

Shakey

I am stangely disappointed that Michelle Bachmann hasn't been mentioned yet. It's a scary world when she is no longer setting the bar for crazy.

Mar 10, 2011#87

Krisken

Oh, she's crazy. But she's that kind of crazy where no one takes her seriously.

Mar 10, 2011#88

Espy

Krisken said:
Oh, she's crazy. But she's that kind of crazy where no one takes her seriously.

As someone who lives very close to her district I wish you were right. Thankfully the national stage doesn't seem to take her seriously.

Mar 10, 2011#89

Tress

My favorite Bachman moment was when she advocated closing down Planned Parenthood because they had a drive-thru for abortions. Nothing gets much crazier than that.

Mar 10, 2011#90

Krisken

Nevermind most Planned Parenthood offices don't have abortion doctors and offer various protective services for women including pap tests. Walker's moronic bill will be defunding Planned Parenthood as well (even though it costs $2 million to operate and the Federal Government gives the state $9 million, turning into a net LOSS for the state of $7 million).

Utterly dumb.

Mar 10, 2011#91

SpecialKO

Shakey said:
I am stangely disappointed that Michelle Bachmann hasn't been mentioned yet. It's a scary world when she is no longer setting the bar for crazy.

It must be admitted, trying to roll back light-bulb efficiency standards, while strange, is just not as exciting.

Mar 10, 2011#92

Shakey

SpecialKO said:
It must be admitted, trying to roll back light-bulb efficiency standards, while strange, is just not as exciting.

Meh, new flourescents aren't always the answer. Bathrooms and appliances shouldn't have them. They would just lead to increased mercury in landfills. Not all that crazy to me.

Mar 10, 2011#93

SpecialKO

Shakey said:
Meh, new flourescents aren't always the answer. Bathrooms and appliances shouldn't have them. They would just lead to increased mercury in landfills. Not all that crazy to me.

Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?

Mar 10, 2011#94

Tress

SpecialKO said:
Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?

Not to mention the rate of replacement for the new CFLs being much, much lower... meaning they don't deposit mercury into landfills as often.

Mar 11, 2011#95

IronBrig4

I had the opportunity to immigrate to New Zealand a couple years ago. I'm thinking I should've taken them up on the offer.

Mar 11, 2011#96

@Li3n

Shakey said:
Meh, new flourescents aren't always the answer. Bathrooms and appliances shouldn't have them. They would just lead to increased mercury in landfills. Not all that crazy to me.

Way i hear it there are still incandescent light bulbs that meet the new consumption criteria, and this law is also to force companies to produce more of those.

As for landfills... learn to recycle people.

Mar 11, 2011#97

Shakey

SpecialKO said:
Compared to the mercury released in the air, earth, and water by coal power plants who are powering traditional bulbs with much higher power requirements?

From what I've heard, the life of cfl's are significantly decreased when they are turned on and off frequently, like you do in bathrooms. So yes, it's usually better to use traditional bulbs there.

Mar 11, 2011#98

strawman

LED lighting is getting cheaper, and is as efficient as cfl, as long lasting as cfl, and much more environmentally friendly.

CFLs decrease in life if you buy cheap ones. When manufacturers use good circuit design to drive the cfl, they can be turned on and off frequently without decreasing their life.

Even if you decrease the life of a cheap CFL, it still lasts longer, on average, than an incandescent.

Mar 11, 2011#99

AshburnerX

LED lighting is also really, really expensive right now. If it wasn't, I'd go out and buy some right now.

Mar 11, 2011#100

Baerdog

Another entry for Michigan! Martial Law in Michigan and Republicans' End Game.

Of course now I'm thinking of future-Detroit from Robocop.

Mar 11, 2011#101

Krisken

Yeah, Baer, I touched on that a little up in my "Pfft, penny ante" post earlier, but that does a great job in describing just how serious a threat Michigan's law really is. I just cannot understand where our mainstream media is to allow this kind of thing to go unreported. Liberal bias my ass.

Mar 11, 2011#102

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
LED lighting is also really, really expensive right now. If it wasn't, I'd go out and buy some right now.

It's unfortunately true, but if I were building/renovating a place right now, I might consider it worth the expense. It might be 5 times more expensive than a pack of CFLs with the same (totaled) lifetime, but considering it's supposed to be 3 times more efficient (which makes it 10-12 times more efficient than an incandescent bulb), the electricity savings might make up for it completely.

Mar 11, 2011#103

MindDetective

SpecialKO said:
It's unfortunately true, but if I were building/renovating a place right now, I might consider it worth the expense. It might be 5 times more expensive than a pack of CFLs with the same (totaled) lifetime, but considering it's supposed to be 3 times more efficient (which makes it 10-12 times more efficient than an incandescent bulb), the electricity savings might make up for it completely.

It sounds like it isn't there yet, at least as of 1 year ago. http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2009...bs-whats-the-best-deal-now-and-in-the-future/

Comparing CostsThe best way to compare the three types of bulbs is to calculate their costs over 30,000 hours of usage – the lifespan of a single LED bulb.

Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL[sic] used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.
As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.

CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.
As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.

LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.
As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.
Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.

Mar 11, 2011#104

Shakey

LED's have dropped in price a lot over the past year. Here's one at Amazon for $27.

Mar 11, 2011#105

SpecialKO

Applying that to MD's other numbers, a CFL is still more cost-effective, but not by a lot (around $10). $10 over 30,000 hours of use seems like an easy price to pay for more eco-friendly.

Mar 11, 2011#106

MindDetective

SpecialKO said:
Applying that to MD's other numbers, a CFL is still more cost-effective, but not by a lot (around $10). $10 over 30,000 hours of use seems like an easy price to pay for more eco-friendly.

There's definitely value in that. Although it seems like LEDs don't disperse the light as much either. They tend to be a bit more directional. It probably isn't too bad, but it may make for some darker corners in your house.

Mar 11, 2011#107

Krisken

Don't forget that LED's don't emit the heat traditional lights do. In the winter time it is less beneficial to have LED's than traditional lights because there is a noticeable rise in heating costs because of it.

Also, traffic lights.

Mar 11, 2011#108

MindDetective

Krisken said:
Don't forget that LED's don't emit the heat traditional lights do. In the winter time it is less beneficial to have LED's than traditional lights because there is a noticeable rise in heating costs because of it.

Also, traffic lights.

Yeah, that was mentioned in the link I gave too. It is hard to estimate the cost there, but it is a very real variable.

Mar 11, 2011#109

Krisken

Repetition! Repetition is my job! My job is repetition!

Sorry about that MD. I fail at life sometimes.

Mar 11, 2011#110

Krisken

A New Hampshire GOP Senator says disabled and mentally ill people should be shipped to Siberia.

You can't make this shit up.

Mar 12, 2011#111

Dave

Ooh! NH is making a serious run for the title!

What a dumbass. And an EVIL dumbass at that!

Mar 12, 2011#112

Krisken

I can't even imagine the emotional disconnect needed to make a statement like that. Just utterly shameless.

Mar 12, 2011#113

blotsfan

I kinda wanna see what he says he actually meant by that, and how it was taken out of contesx.

Mar 12, 2011#114

Krisken

fta said:
Harty confirmed to the Monitor that he made the comments to Omand. Harty told the Monitor the world population has increased dramatically, and “it’s a very dangerous situation if it doubles again.” Asked about people who are mentally ill, he asked, apparently referring to a lack of financial resources, “Can we afford to bring them through?”
Harty said nature has a way of “getting rid of stupid people,” and “now we’re saving everyone who gets born.”

That was his clarification.

Mar 12, 2011#115

DarkAudit

No, no , no. It's always the staff who has to go "what the Senator really meant was..."

Mar 14, 2011#116

Krisken

Posted this in the Walker thread, but i get a feeling it will get more attention here.

Fitzgerald, Senate majority leader in the state of WI, has said Democrats are still in contempt (despite being at the building) and aren't allowed to vote.

Mar 14, 2011#117

Espy

What is his legal basis? I'm not exactly up on Wisconsin law.

Mar 14, 2011#118

AshburnerX

Espy said:
What is his legal basis? I'm not exactly up on Wisconsin law.

I doubt he has one. At this point it's ether pure vengeance or an attempt to get as much of their agenda through before they get recalled.

Mar 14, 2011#119

Espy

AshburnerX said:
I doubt he has one. At this point it's ether pure vengeance or an attempt to get as much of their agenda through before they get recalled.

Well then... I mean, he can't actually stop them from voting or their votes from counting can he? Wouldn't HE then face legal charges?

Mar 14, 2011#120

Krisken

There isn't any. The vote they held to hold the 14 Democrat Senators in contempt of Congress was questionable at best. The condition of being in contempt that they put forth, that being they were in contempt because they were not at the capitol building, has already been met.

This is illegal. Pure and simple. To deny 14 districts a voice in the state Senate is beyond anything I've ever heard of.
Added at: 21:59

Espy said:
Well then... I mean, he can't actually stop them from voting or their votes from counting can he? Wouldn't HE then face legal charges?

You would think so. See why this is so upsetting?

What bothers me most is this isn't being reported in the mainstream news. This is just beyond words for me.

Mar 14, 2011#121

Espy

Ah, so as a legal basis they are using a questionable vote to hold the dems in contempt which, if true, would allow them to do this? I assume that the "in contempt" thing is being challenged then?

Mar 14, 2011#122

Krisken

Espy said:
Ah, so as a legal basis they are using a questionable vote to hold the dems in contempt which, if true, would allow them to do this? I assume that the "in contempt" thing is being challenged then?

Yes, but that would require the state attorney general to get involved. He's a Republican. They pretty much have all the keys and locks at this point.

I'm hoping for National Guard intervention at this point. I just don't see any timely fix to this available.

Mar 15, 2011#123

SpecialKO

Michele Bachmann's latest entry is still a little weak tea, but it's funny:

Bachmann claims the media persecuted her when they quoted her.

Mar 15, 2011#124

Krisken

Dirty media, quoting her in context.

Mar 15, 2011#125

SpecialKO

Florida has a new entry!

State Senator Jim Norman wants to make it a first-degree felony to take pictures on or of "Farms" without express written permission.

Mar 15, 2011#126

sixpackshaker

Didn't you already post that?
Added at: 20:02
The intent of the law is to stop Muckraking Journalists from doing their jobs. Also to stop animal rights groups from creating footage of deplorable conditions on farms.

I don't know what troubles me more, the disregard for the First Amendment, or the ineptitude of the writer of that legislation. Since it also stops people from taking rural photos while on public property.

Mar 15, 2011#127

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
Didn't you already post that?

Ah, Dave got it a page or so ago. Good catch.

And in addition to your other points, also makes it a first-degree felony, punishable in Florida by up to 30 years.

Mar 15, 2011#128

Krisken

"What are you in for?"
"Killed a man. You?"
"Took pictures of farms without permission."
"Monster! Get away from me!!"

Mar 31, 2011#129

Krisken

And, out of the blue, we have a new contender!

So Maine wants to roll back child labor laws by eliminating the cap on hours a 16 year old can work on a school day and remove minimum wage protections for those under 20. This would change the minimum wage earned by kids from $7.50/hour to $5.25/hour.

Apr 1, 2011#130

Math242

yeah i came here to say that Belgium had all of your states beaten but it would seem that even 290 days without a governement is not enough to even get a mention in the crazy State race

I love America

Apr 1, 2011#131

Covar

but how are kids supposed to live off of $5.25 an hour?

What was the cap on the hours they can work?

Apr 1, 2011#132

Norris

Krisken said:
And, out of the blue, we have a new contender!

So Maine wants to roll back child labor laws by eliminating the cap on hours a 16 year old can work on a school day and remove minimum wage protections for those under 20. This would change the minimum wage earned by kids from $7.50/hour to $5.25/hour.

All right, if it was just one or the other, I wouldn't mind. If you're working part time with a cap on your hours because you're a student, then perhaps you should be at a lower standard of pay than your co-workers who are living off their paychecks. If you're 16, you can legally (in my state, at least) drop out of high school and therefore there shouldn't be a cap on how many hours you can work during a school day at that age. Doing both is moronic, because they have completely separate goals in mind.

Apr 1, 2011#133

Krisken

Really? Getting paid less because you are younger sounds crazy to me. I suppose next we should pay women less, or discriminate pay by ethnicity. Doesn't sound so good now, does it?

Think it is hard for adults to get jobs now? Imagine them competing against people who can legally make $2 less an hour for the same work.

Apr 1, 2011#134

Espy

I do have issues with saying "X" people should get paid less but I don't have a problem with entry level jobs having a lower starting wage.

Apr 1, 2011#135

sixpackshaker

Well a housewife in the workforce already has a husband bringing in money...

I've heard so many arguments along these lines when people in power try to explain why teachers earn such little money.
Added at: 18:07

Espy said:
I do have issues with saying "X" people should get paid less but I don't have a problem with entry level jobs having a lower starting wage.

Yeah, why pay some one more to work than what it costs to drive there and back?

Apr 1, 2011#136

Espy

sixpackshaker said:
Yeah, why pay some one more to work than what it costs to drive there and back?

Wow, that is exactly what I said! How'd you do that?!?

Apr 1, 2011#137

sixpackshaker

Espy said:
Wow, that is exactly what I said! How'd you do that?!?

We need to do everything we can to keep the poor from moving up. One good way to do that is to pay sub-urban teenagers less to do the same work, so people that need the money will be barred from employment.

Apr 1, 2011#138

Espy

How are you reading my mind?!? Stop it!

Apr 1, 2011#139

Norris

Krisken said:
Really? Getting paid less because you are younger sounds crazy to me. I suppose next we should pay women less, or discriminate pay by ethnicity. Doesn't sound so good now, does it?

Think it is hard for adults to get jobs now? Imagine them competing against people who can legally make $2 less an hour for the same work.

Getting paid less because you're only in high school is nowhere close to discriminating based on race or gender. In my state, high schoolers get more frequent breaks and can only work until nine PM on weeknights (at least, as I recall). Why exactly do they deserve to get paid the exact same hourly wage as adults who need the job to keep a roof over their head and food on their table? Now, equal work should mean equal pay but you can't argue that a high schooler who can work a maximum of five hours or so a day and gets a lunch break in that time that their adult counterparts do not is doing equal work.

Apr 1, 2011#140

Krisken

I most certainly can. I don't think I ever worked as hard as when I worked at the nursing home in the kitchen. In Wisconsin they required places to give a 15 minute break for a 5 hour work shift (not a paid 30 minute), and I imagine it depends on the state.

What you use the money for should have NO BEARING on how much you get paid for the work you do. That gets reflected in raises. Those kids could be saving money for college, or even raising families in some cases. Can you honestly tell me that someone who is 18 or 19 should make less than a 20 year old for doing the same job simply because of the difference in age? That's messed up, yo.

Apr 1, 2011#141

SpecialKO

Norris said:
Why exactly do they deserve to get paid the exact same hourly wage as adults who need the job to keep a roof over their head and food on their table?

For one thing, as Krisken pointed out, to keep businesses from hiring teenagers who cost less than minimum wage required for adults to do drudge work instead of those adults.

Also, are lunch breaks not part of the law where you are? They are in NJ/NY. You cannot legally prevent someone from taking 30 min during their work day for lunch.

EDIT: Totally ninja'ed by Krisken.
EDIT2: Correction, NY has break laws, but NJ does not if you're over 18.

Apr 1, 2011#142

Norris

Krisken said:
I most certainly can. I don't think I ever worked as hard as when I worked at the nursing home in the kitchen. In Wisconsin they required places to give a 15 minute break for a 5 hour work shift (not a paid 30 minute), and I imagine it depends on the state.

Fair enough, I suppose, but in Michigan you get breaks earlier and can work fewer hours in a week if you're under eighteen. You are not doing the same amount of work, no matter how you slice it. I agree that restricting wages for legal adults is horseshit, but for minors? If the law views you as being incapable of doing the same work as an adult, why should you get paid like an adult?

What you use the money for should have NO BEARING on how much you get paid for the work you do. That gets reflected in raises. Those kids could be saving money for college, or even raising families in some cases. Can you honestly tell me that someone who is 18 or 19 should make less than a 20 year old for doing the same job simply because of the difference in age? That's messed up, yo.

But the amount of work SHOULD. And since legally minors can not do the same amount (or in some cases, even the same level of work) of work as an adult, why should they get paid the same wages? Once you're eighteen, you're an adult so you should get paid like one and if you're a drop out you've accepted the responsibilities of adulthood. But if you're in school and working under restrictions, then you're not an equal to your adult co-workers.

SpecialKO said:
For one thing, as Krisken pointed out, to keep businesses from hiring teenagers who cost less than minimum wage required for adults to do drudge work instead of those adults.

You mean the teenagers who can't work until closing time, can't work openings, and are legally required to take breaks more frequently? Having them paid less would probably make it easier for them to get jobs than it is now.

SpecialKO said:
Also, are lunch breaks not part of the law where you are? They are in NJ/NY. You cannot legally prevent someone from taking 30 min during their work day for lunch

In Michigan, you get a 30 unpaid minute lunch by law when you work for six hours, with a fifteen minute paid break when you work four. Unless you're under the age of eighteen, where it is five hours and three hours, respectively (IIRC). Naturally, your employer knows this and can schedule accordingly.

Apr 1, 2011#143

SpecialKO

Norris said:
You mean the teenagers who can't work until closing time, can't work openings, and are legally required to take breaks more frequently? Having them paid less would probably make it easier for them to get jobs than it is now.

Yes, that's the exact problem. That's the point where employers stop hiring adults and start hiring teenagers.

Apr 1, 2011#144

Krisken

I have no words.

Apr 1, 2011#145

Norris

SpecialKO said:
Yes, that's the exact problem. That's the point where employers stop hiring adults and start hiring teenagers.

So all businesses will operate exclusively from 3PM to 9PM now?

Krisken said:
I have no words.

Maybe you would have them if you'd watched a high schooler leave after their five hour shift (really 4.25 hours with their breaks) while you skipped your 15 minute break and delayed the hell out of your lunch because you're busy as hell. Then maybe you'd notice that high schoolers don't work like adults do. Then maybe you'd see the inherent unfairness in them being paid the exact same hourly wage as you when they work far fewer hours, with far fewer responsibilities, and with more breaks than you.

EDIT: Another example: I witness my bosses rearrange customers in line (or taking over the lane themselves) and inconveniencing everyone just so the high school age employee could leave on time. Adults work the few extra minutes until the rush dies down. High schooler gets special treatment, under the law. How is that equal?

Apr 1, 2011#146

Tress

Norris said:

Apr 1, 2011#147

Krisken

Norris said:
Maybe you would have them if you'd watched a high schooler leave after their five hour shift (really 4.25 hours with their breaks) while you skipped your 15 minute break and delayed the hell out of your lunch because you're busy as hell. Then maybe you'd notice that high schoolers don't work like adults do. Then maybe you'd see the inherent unfairness in them being paid the exact same hourly wage as you when they work far fewer hours, with far fewer responsibilities, and with more breaks than you.

Or maybe I'm amazed at how you can lump a group of people together and absolutely ignore that those businesses can fire or give notices to those same kids, or that their poor performance will affect their future raises (remember this? We talked about this already in this thread). Just because you've had some bad experiences with some kids doesn't mean that all adults work harder than kids do. Shit, some of the laziest, shittiest workers I've ever encountered have been adults who, by virtue of their fucking age, felt they deserved more than the other people they worked with. That doesn't mean that all adult workers are piss poor and should make less. That's what performance reviews, warnings, and firings are for.

Apr 1, 2011#148

SpecialKO

Norris said:
So all businesses will operate exclusively from 3PM to 9PM now?

No, but they'll start hiring only teens to run those shifts.

Maybe you would have them if you'd watched a high schooler leave after their five hour shift (really 4.25 hours with their breaks) while you skipped your 15 minute break and delayed the hell out of your lunch because you're busy as hell. Then maybe you'd notice that high schoolers don't work like adults do. Then maybe you'd see the inherent unfairness in them being paid the exact same hourly wage as you when they work far fewer hours, with far fewer responsibilities, and with more breaks than you.

And allowing businesses to pay teenagers less to do that same job you're complaining about will not change your circumstances for the better in the slightest. At all. In fact, with no cap on the hours they can work, you're even more likely to get a call from your supervisor saying you don't need to come in for your shift.
Added at: 20:15
Besides, if someone you work with is paid at the same rate you do for a demonstrably inferior job, then you have an excellent case for getting a raise (or an ironclad answer to "why do you want to leave your current job?")

Apr 1, 2011#149

Norris

I'm 21. So yeah.

Krisken said:
Or maybe I'm amazed at how you can lump a group of people together and absolutely ignore that those businesses can fire or give notices to those same kids, or that their poor performance will affect their future raises (remember this? We talked about this already in this thread). Just because you've had some bad experiences with some kids doesn't mean that all adults work harder than kids do. Shit, some of the laziest, shittiest workers I've ever encountered have been adults who, by virtue of their fucking age, felt they deserved more than the other people they worked with. That doesn't mean that all adult workers are piss poor and should make less. That's what performance reviews, warnings, and firings are for.

I didn't say a damn thing about the quality of their work. The minors I worked with were fine cashiers. However, state laws mandated they treated with kid gloves. State laws mandated they coddled. State laws mandated they get paid as much as their adult counterparts who had to pick their legally required slack. Shitty, lazy employees didn't hack it at my Target. We were the top selling store in the district, the busiest store in the district, and one of the largest stores in the district. Everyone either pulled their weight or quit. The state made it so that minors weren't legally allowed to pull their full weight. I don't see why it is unreasonable that allowances be made in the law to reflect.

SpecialKO said:
No, but they'll start hiring only teens to run those shifts.

And who will cover the teens breaks? Will they employee folks to work one or two hour shifts to do closings?

And allowing businesses to pay teenagers less to do that same job you're complaining about will not change your circumstances for the better in the slightest. At all. In fact, with no cap on the hours they can work, you're even more likely to get a call from your supervisor saying you don't need to come in for your shift.

No no no no no, you misunderstand me. I feel you either cap their pay or cap their hours. Not both. If they're able to do the same amount of work, get the same breaks, then they get the same pay. If they have to be coddled, then their pay should reflect the slack. Equal work, equal pay. Unequal work, unequal pay.

Added at: 20:15
Besides, if someone you work with is paid at the same rate you do for a demonstrably inferior job, then you have an excellent case for getting a raise (or an ironclad answer to "why do you want to leave your current job?")

I didn't say their work was inferior. I said they had to be coddled, that they were legally prohibited from working as hard as I did. I'm willing to bet they'd have worked until closing if they could have, handled an extra hour until lunch, etc. But the state said "no". When you're a minimum wage cashier at a non-union (thank god, why the hell does a store like Target or Wal Mart need a union in this day and age?) store, you don't just demand a raise because you're an adult and have to work harder than a high schooler. That's not how this works.

Apr 1, 2011#150

Krisken

They say no because those kids are going to school. The reason kids are limited in their hours is because they found school work suffered if kids were working excessive hours. Are you saying that those limitations are pointless and the kids should suffer a wage decrease because of it?

I'm having a hard time following your reasoning, Norris.

Apr 1, 2011#151

SpecialKO

Norris said:
No no no no no, you misunderstand me. I feel you either cap their pay or cap their hours. Not both. If they're able to do the same amount of work, get the same breaks, then they get the same pay. If they have to be coddled, then their pay should reflect the slack. Equal work, equal pay. Unequal work, unequal pay.

Then, as I said, every shift-slot available 3pm-9pm will become shifts for teenagers. Not you or other adults. Why would you ever hire an adult when you can legally hire a teenager for less to do the exact same job?

(thank god, why the hell does a store like Target or Wal Mart need a union in this day and age?)

They're relatively effective in making sure that stores don't replace all adult workers in the afternoon shift with teenagers for less than min wage. That's kind of what they're actually for.

Apr 1, 2011#152

Norris

Krisken said:
They say no because those kids are going to school. The reason kids are limited in their hours is because they found school work suffered if kids were working excessive hours. Are you saying that those limitations are pointless and the kids should suffer a wage decrease because of it?

I'm having a hard time following your reasoning, Norris.

If they are considered to be capable of doing the same work as their adult counterparts, then they deserve the same pay. If they are legally considered unable to do that work (for whatever reason, as schoolwork concerns could easily apply to college students and yet legally it does not), then they don't deserve the same pay. What I find hard to follow is the logic behind mandating they work fewer hours and get more breaks (which has what to do with their school work?) without a corresponding cut in pay. The limitations have a very valid reason behind them, but that doesn't magically make things equal.

Apr 1, 2011#153

Tress

The logic is like this:

1) While on the clock, teenagers are just as capable of their adult counterparts. If they were not just as capable, they would not hold that position at work. Thus, they should be paid the same amount.

2) Society has an interest in not making kids so tired that they don't/can't finish school. So, there are limits to the amount of hours they work and we give them more breaks. This will pay off in later years after the teenager has been able to focus more in school.

Apr 1, 2011#154

AshburnerX

SpecialKO said:
They're relatively effective in making sure that stores don't replace all adult workers in the afternoon shift with teenagers for less than min wage. That's kind of what they're actually for.

Pretty much this.

Apr 1, 2011#155

strawman

I just want to point out the logical inconsistency with suggesting that businesses would keep kids on staff at adult pay rates knowing that they have to coddle the kids and that they'll get less out of them. If it's true that they have to pay the same rate, and it's true that adults are easier to use and abuse, then businesses wouldn't be hiring kids. Bottom line.

In other words, the assertions that kids are universally worse at doing the job and get coddled must not be true, logically.

Further, I have seen many, many adults that did less work than the kids they worked alongside.

Also, the kids don't get paid for breaks, just like the adults. So who cares if they get "additional" or "longer" breaks? Scheduling is hard? No, scheduling is hard because businesses try to control costs by limiting their workers on a given shift to one less than what they actually need to accomplish their goals. It's not as though they can't schedule another 2-3 people to work that night, it's that they choose not to because they'd rather have their employees running around trying to play catchup all night than they want one employee twiddling their thumbs for an instant.

But absolutely NONE of that matters.

What is the point of minimum wage? Once you figure that out, then you can decide whether it's worthwhile lowering it for minors or not.

It's not as easy as you might think at first, but dig into the reasons for minimum wage and decide for yourself.

Apr 1, 2011#156

Krisken

Minimum wage prevents corporations from taking advantage of a desperate, poverty stricken populace. It sets the absolute lowest bar on what people should be able to earn and still afford basic necessities, such as food, water, clothing, and housing.

Think of it like this-
Costs:
Rent: $450/month, $5400/ year
Food: $70/week, $3600/year
Clothing: $500/year
Utilities: $100/month, $1200/year
Gasoline: $ $30/week, $1560/year
Total: $12,260/year

Minimum wage ($7.25/hour), full time (40 hours/week)
$15,080

That is a tight fucking budget, and it doesn't even include taxes of any sort or any other expenses (car breaking down, health problems, etc).

Apr 2, 2011#157

AshburnerX

And even then the minimum wage only covers an average scenario and a fair housing market. People living in the City need a lot more for rent and food, while people with long commutes need to pay out more in gas and car maintenance.

It also only covers one person's expenses. Factor in people needing to cover a dependent and then minimum wage becomes completely broken.

Apr 2, 2011#158

Hailey Knight

I wish my rent was only $450 a month.

Apr 2, 2011#159

Krisken

escushion said:
I wish my rent was only $450 a month.

Yeah, I was trying to go for a 'best case scenario'. That's about the lowest I've seen for a 1 bedroom in my area, though most are more like $550 and up.

Apr 2, 2011#160

Tress

Krisken said:
Yeah, I was trying to go for a 'best case scenario'. That's about the lowest I've seen for a 1 bedroom in my area, though most are more like $550 and up.

The cheapest 1 bedroom in my town is $850 a month.

Apr 2, 2011#161

Espy

So to those who want to see a higher minimum wage, which I'm open to, what yearly would be an acceptable wage and what effects from those higher wages are you okay with being placed on businesses, their employees and customers?

Apr 2, 2011#162

AshburnerX

Without strict (and somewhat unfair) laws in place, raising minimum wage is basically pointless. You always have to make a choice: Who do you hurt?

- Consumers: By raising prices or selling lower quality/lower quantity merchandise.

- Employees: By downsizing employees and cutting salaries/bonuses at the top (which makes it hard to attract talent).

- Businesses: By forcing them to earn less (which prevents growth and risk taking) or by making them eat losses (which can lead to bankruptcy).

Personally, I'd start at the top and begin by slashing salaries/bonuses there because they would be less effected by loss at that level... but apparently that's "socialism" and that's "bad".

Apr 2, 2011#163

Espy

AshburnerX said:
Without strict (and somewhat unfair) laws in place, raising minimum wage is basically pointless. You always have to make a choice: Who do you hurt?

- Consumers: By raising prices or selling lower quality/lower quantity merchandise.

- Employees: By downsizing employees and cutting salaries/bonuses at the top (which makes it hard to attract talent).

- Businesses: By forcing them to earn less (which prevents growth and risk taking) or by making them eat losses (which can lead to bankruptcy).

Personally, I'd start at the top and begin by slashing salaries/bonuses there because they would be less effected by loss at that level... but apparently that's "socialism" and that's "bad".

Thats exactly my point.

As far as the slashing salaries/bonuses thing goes... well, I'm with you that is certainly seems to be in societies best interests to see less people getting paid 8 bazillion dollars and more people making living wages but it seems just as concerning to suddenly have a government bureaucrat with that much power.
Perhaps there is some middle road though, I'm not sure what but I'd love to see the middle and lower class given better wages and I think our economy would do far better to have more people making better money than to see it consolidated in such a small group.

Apr 2, 2011#164

MindDetective

Capitalism is an incentive-based system. How do you give executives an incentive to earn less money when money IS the incentive? I'm not advocating socialism here. It is genuinely a difficult problem to contend with.

Apr 2, 2011#165

Krisken

I think it takes an enormous set of cajones to on one hand say that everyone has to buckle down and accept huge pay cuts and then a second later say that CEO's need bigger and bigger wages or we'll lose them.

Bullshit. It's about time they make the same sacrifices that those making under 100k a year have been forced to make.

Apr 2, 2011#166

Espy

Krisken said:
I think it takes an enormous set of cajones to on one hand say that everyone has to buckle down and accept huge pay cuts and then a second later say that CEO's need bigger and bigger wages or we'll lose them.

Who proposed this? I'm looking over the thread and I can't find it.

Krisken said:
Bullshit. It's about time they make the same sacrifices that those making under 100k a year have been forced to make.

...and I doubt you will find anyone here who feel differently from this statement, the question is how do you do?

Apr 2, 2011#167

Krisken

Espy said:
Who proposed this? I'm looking over the thread and I can't find it.

...and I doubt you will find anyone here who feel differently from this statement, the question is how do you do?

No one is directly saying that. It is, however, the argument that has been pushed by the GOP for the last 3 years while simultaneously demonizing teachers and other public workers. The two things are never argued at the same time, for obvious reasons.

How do I do wha now? :confused:

Apr 2, 2011#168

Espy

Lol, well good for the GOP for arguing I guess, but I'm a lot less interested in how you perceive the GOP's arguments (which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with what any of us are discussing right now) than I am with how you implement this statement you made: "It's about time they make the same sacrifices that those making under 100k a year have been forced to make."

Apr 2, 2011#169

Krisken

Espy said:
Lol, well good for the GOP for arguing I guess, but I'm a lot less interested in how you perceive the GOP's arguments (which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with what any of us are discussing right now) than I am with how you implement this statement you made: "It's about time they make the same sacrifices that those making under 100k a year have been forced to make."

I'm saying that CEO salaries have been on the rise for years, with the top 1% possessing over 40% of the nations wealth. Slashing those wages doesn't seem like such an awful thing to me, and if they want to continue to increase their wealth, they shouldn't have a problem taking a pay cut. Hell, if they don't and just retire, that gives the opportunity for someone else to take their places. I see no harm in this. Competition should be just as vital at the top of the business model as it is at the bottom.

Apr 2, 2011#170

Espy

Krisken said:
I'm saying that CEO salaries have been on the rise for years, with the top 1% possessing over 40% of the nations wealth. Slashing those wages doesn't seem like such an awful thing to me, and if they want to continue to increase their wealth, they shouldn't have a problem taking a pay cut. Hell, if they don't and just retire, that gives the opportunity for someone else to take their places. I see no harm in this. Competition should be just as vital at the top of the business model as it is at the bottom.

Like I said before, I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that it might be better if the top 1% took a pay cut. The issue is, as I asked before, HOW do you make that pay cut happen and keep any form of healthy competition?

Apr 2, 2011#171

Krisken

How do you make that pay cut happen? How about stop giving bonuses to CEO's who utterly fail. Create conditions for their pay which reflects the health of the entire company as a whole. If you reduce your workforce in order to raise stock prices, that is not success. Measuring a successful company can not be based entirely on stock prices.

Apr 2, 2011#172

SpecialKO

Espy said:
Like I said before, I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that it might be better if the top 1% took a pay cut. The issue is, as I asked before, HOW do you make that pay cut happen and keep any form of healthy competition?

I wouldn't force anyone take a pay cut (how could you possibly do it legally, anyways), but I would repeal most of the tax cuts for the top 1%. As Krisken says, it's a little rich to complain about the greedy unions in Wisconsin when one of the first things Scott Walker did was issue more tax cuts for top earners.
Added at: 19:31

Krisken said:
How do you make that pay cut happen? How about stop giving bonuses to CEO's who utterly fail. Create conditions for their pay which reflects the health of the entire company as a whole. If you reduce your workforce in order to raise stock prices, that is not success. Measuring a successful company can not be based entirely on stock prices.

The problem with that is that shareholders may not see it that way. If the CEO can cut most of the workforce, and still have a positive earnings per share increase, shareholders will likely cut him a break, at least for now.

Apr 2, 2011#173

AshburnerX

SpecialKO said:
The problem with that is that shareholders may not see it that way. If the CEO can cut most of the workforce, and still have a positive earnings per share increase, shareholders will likely cut him a break, at least for now.

Personally, I think the first step to getting the ball rolling is to get a certain ruling overturned... the one which states that a company must act in the best interest of it's shareholders. That single ruling gave rise to the dreaded 1980's Businessmen archetype that still exists to this day.

Apr 2, 2011#174

Espy

Krisken said:
How do you make that pay cut happen? How about stop giving bonuses to CEO's who utterly fail. Create conditions for their pay which reflects the health of the entire company as a whole. If you reduce your workforce in order to raise stock prices, that is not success. Measuring a successful company can not be based entirely on stock prices.

I get how you cut pay, what I'm more asking about, and sorry, I guess I'm being super unclear here, how do you get companies to actually do these things? It's great to say that "Measuring a successful company can not be based entirely on stock prices." but if they disagree then what? Whats in it for them to change how they do business?
I only ask because I agree with you, there HAS to be change or our society is only going to get worse and the disparity will only grow but I can't for the life of me figure out how to change these sorts of things.

Apr 2, 2011#175

AshburnerX

Espy said:
I get how you cut pay, what I'm more asking about, and sorry, I guess I'm being super unclear here, how do you get companies to actually do these things? It's great to say that "Measuring a successful company can not be based entirely on stock prices." but if they disagree then what? Whats in it for them to change how they do business?
I only ask because I agree with you, there HAS to be change or our society is only going to get worse and the disparity will only grow but I can't for the life of me figure out how to change these sorts of things.

This is why I've always been in favor of things like caps for bonuses and salary caps for executives. Any time a business or industry is unable or unwilling to self-regulate for the public good, it has always been the duty of the government to step in... and we already have a demonstrable example of it working in practice: The entire world of professional sports.

Apr 2, 2011#176

strawman

Capitalism begets capitalism. The system is self-optimizing for greatest profitability. In public companies, the board and CEO are beholden to the shareholders. It's their job to make the investment worthwhile. The CEO won't take the job if they don't have a good chance of coming out a winner. If the board hires a CEO who's willing to work for peanuts the shareholders will kill the board. The system automatically selects for high paid ceos that work in the interest on the shareholders.

To suggest otherwise is to fiddle with the basic capitalism our entire financial system is based on, and trying to artificially force capitalism to work against itself is shortsighted at best. There are examples all over the place of countries who pretend to implement capitalism, but instead monkey with the market.

Quite frankly, if you want a financial revolution, it has to start the same way any other successful revolution starts - you get the bottom part of the populace to boycott those companies that aren't doing what they want them to do. It won't work unless you get a significant (double digit percentage) portion of the population to decide that it's in their best interest to boycott companies where the CEO makes "too much".

You can't force this from the top - there are a million loopholes, and the act of closing them merely opens new loopholes.

Most people have chosen to accept the system and work within its framework. Makes it hard to start a revolution when most people are happy with what they have, and even the lower middles class are still in the top 20% of living conditions considering the entire world.

What other options are there? Is there really a way we can force executives to accept less pay for higher standards of success without fundamentally undermining our economy? Even if we do that, is that actually going to increase our society's wellbeing? How can we make sure that money actually goes someplace useful - it belongs to the company if they don't give it to the wealthy. We can't extract it through taxes because there's always a dozen loopholes.

Then there's people like me who alternately are apathetic (it's just the way it is, deal) and accepting (hey, if I work hard, I can make myself wealthy). Is there a chance of reaching us who either don't care, or don't really want it changed because it's going to be us someday, and we believe that if we've invented the next awesome gizmo, then we shouldn't be limited to earning only a million dollars because no one should be rich.

Somehow limiting the amount of wealth any given individual can accumulate will devastate the growth of startups. They are started on the basis that if successful they will vault the inventor/owner/investors into multimillionaires. We would not have Google if the cofounders did not believe that they had a chance at becoming filthy rich. They would not have attracted investors if the investors did not believe they could get a 100x return on their investment. Forcing any sort of cap on either CEOs, executives, investors, or companies, (which is the same as taxing them at an increasing rate) will kill innovation.

Apr 2, 2011#177

AshburnerX

So your basic premise is "It's too hard, so why bother?" Seriously?

Apr 2, 2011#178

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Forcing any sort of cap on either CEOs, executives, investors, or companies, (which is the same as taxing them at an increasing rate) will kill innovation.

While I agree with the general premise of the system being very much locked in place, and the idea of governmental regulation of private success being distasteful, this sentence makes very little sense at face value. By that kind of absolutist logic, you should not tax rich people at all, but only the poor. It also assumes that being a CEO, executive, investor, or company automatically makes you an innovator.

I could just as easily say that increasing the top marginal tax rate will allow the government to fund more schools, and will automatically increase innovation among lower-t0-middle-class neighborhoods.

The truth is very much in the middle.

Apr 3, 2011#179

strawman

AshburnerX said:
So your basic premise is "It's too hard, so why bother?" Seriously?

My basic premise is, "All the solutions I've seen so far are ineffective or worse than the problem."

I'm not saying we shouldn't come up with better plans.

But I'm not so naive as to believe that making executives somehow stop consuming a disproportionate share is going to fix anything, nevermind everything.

Apr 3, 2011#180

Krisken

Who is saying it will fix everything?

Apr 3, 2011#181

strawman

You tell me. My assertion is that it won't fix anything, and I was completely dismissing fixing everything out of hand.

But if anyone is really interested in seriously discussing the benefits of forcing executives to accept less pay, it might be worthwhile starting a new thread. Quite interesting how we got from teenagers in one state facing the possibility of lower minimum wage to the idea that we need to reduce the salary of executives.

Honestly I'll be surprised if the bill is passed.

Apr 4, 2011#182

@Li3n

stienman said:
Forcing any sort of cap on either CEOs, executives, investors, or companies, (which is the same as taxing them at an increasing rate) will kill innovation.

Reminds me of that joke about the space pen...

Or on a more serious note Xerox inventing the GUI but not doing anything with it because they where already making all that money on copiers...
Added at: 07:32

stienman said:
Quite interesting how we got from teenagers in one state facing the possibility of lower minimum wage to the idea that we need to reduce the salary of executives.

Almost as if in any system with limited resources one end of the spectrum affects the other...

Apr 5, 2011#183

sixpackshaker

I've been saying this for a decade, we are in the "New Guilded Age." Capitalism has run amok to the point that it is destroying our society again. Hopefully there will be an "New Progressive Era" to right the damage that the Oligarchies are doing to this nation. Monopolies and Oligarchies are not good for competition, and they are not Capitalist.

Apr 5, 2011#184

Espy

sixpackshaker said:
Monopolies and Oligarchies are not good for competition, and they are not Capitalist.

I could not agree more.

Apr 8, 2011#185

SpecialKO

And Mississippi makes a break for the head of the pack!

46% of registered Republican voters polled want interracial marriage to be specifically banned.

Apr 8, 2011#186

sixpackshaker

...they's miscegenated!!

Apr 8, 2011#187

Chibibar

SpecialKO said:
And Mississippi makes a break for the head of the pack!

46% of state residents polled want interracial marriage to be specifically banned.

Heh. I guess if that EVER come to pass (never happen but lets say it did) my wife and I wouldn't be visiting Mississippi anytime soon.

Apr 8, 2011#188

Covar

Anyone else really want to see the racial breakdown of that poll?

Apr 8, 2011#189

sixpackshaker

Being both Republican and White Supremest... one could only guess.

Apr 8, 2011#190

Dei

I like how they cross reference who people would vote for with how they voted on marriage. Hilarity.

Apr 8, 2011#191

sixpackshaker

SpecialKO said:
And Mississippi makes a break for the head of the pack!

46% of state residents polled want interracial marriage to be specifically banned.

You really need to edit your misleading tittle of the link.

Apr 8, 2011#192

Krisken

Hah, I was thinking that too Sixpackshaker. It's not 46% of state residents. It's 46% state Republicans.

Apr 8, 2011#193

SpecialKO

Good catch. Fixed.

Apr 15, 2011#194

SpecialKO

Arizona has passed their birther bill.

In order to appear on the presidential ballot in Arizona, the candidate must provide:

A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATE'S MOTHER AND FATHER, INCLUDING INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE CITIZENSHIP OF BOTH PARENTS, THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE.

I'm not entirely sure how Arizona is able to dictate what being a federally-defined natural born citizen is, but that is what they are trying to do.

Apr 15, 2011#195

blotsfan

So if you don't know who your father is you aren't allowed to run for president?

Apr 15, 2011#196

Krisken

blotsfan said:
So if you don't know who your father is you aren't allowed to run for president?

Not only that, but imagine all the people who can't run for President because the records were destroyed in floods/fires/natural disasters.

Apr 15, 2011#197

Tress

I'm thinking that, if this were to get challenged, it would get overturned pretty quickly.

Apr 15, 2011#198

SpecialKO

or if any parent is not a US citizen...
or if you weren't born in a hospital...
or if there wasn't an attending physician, for whatever reason...
or if there weren't 3rd-party witnesses in attendance...
or if you were born in Hawaii (since their official documents that they issue don't have a lot of these)...

Apr 15, 2011#199

AshburnerX

Tress said:
I'm thinking that, if this were to get challenged, it would get overturned pretty quickly.

It's going to be challenged at least by the next election. Trump can't meet those obligations.

Apr 15, 2011#200

@Li3n

Espy said:
I could not agree more.

And you'd be wrong... capitalism is just about private ownership of capital and stuff being done for profit etc. Monopolies etc. are simply bad for competition and innovation, outside of whether or not they're in a capitalist system.

Think of it as being able to vote of things and have the vote matter (democracy) vs not being able to vote for genocide of a minority (human rights)...

Apr 15, 2011#201

strawman

SpecialKO said:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/13/birther-bill-passes-arizona-senate.aspxI'm not entirely sure how Arizona is able to dictate what being a federally-defined natural born citizen is, but that is what they are trying to do.

Arizona has full power to decide what presidential candidates get on their ballots. It doesn't matter what the federal gov't definition is - the natural born citizen definition is a minimum bar - a state can't place electorial votes on people that go below the bar.

However, there no ruling that says a state can't define the bar more clearly, and quite possibly go above the bar a small distance.

This is a republic. The states get to decide who they put on their individual ballots.

People will write-in if they leave off a real candidate, and honestly this action is likely to make people take more notice of the presidents that don't meet this definition. Rather than hurting them, it's likely to help them in terms of publicity.

It could go to the state supreme court, but it's unlikely that the federal supreme court has jurisdiction over the state election policies. This is one of the areas where the separation between the state and federal gov't, like marriage, is likely to be contentious and confusing, but is probably going to stay with the state.

Apr 15, 2011#202

Covar

stienman said:
It could go to the state supreme court, but it's unlikely that the federal supreme court has jurisdiction over the state election policies.

Unless it involves removing the party designation off the ballot, which is clearly a racist issue designed to discriminate against black voters.

To be fair that's not the courts who have the jurisdiction, but an unelected federal bureaucrat.

Apr 15, 2011#203

strawman

Covar said:
Unless it involves removing the party designation off the ballot, which is clearly a racist issue designed to discriminate against black voters.

To be fair that's not the courts who have the jurisdiction, but an unelected federal bureaucrat.

Well certainly, anything that infringes on the rights provided by the bill of rights, amendments, and constitution can go to the supreme court, and it's likely that some aspect of either how it's written, or how it will be implemented may in fact have some weight in the federal arena. It's not going to be a n easy or pretty fight however, due to the contentious issue of state's rights.

Apr 15, 2011#204

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Arizona has full power to decide what presidential candidates get on their ballots. It doesn't matter what the federal gov't definition is - the natural born citizen definition is a minimum bar - a state can't place electorial votes on people that go below the bar.

However, there no ruling that says a state can't define the bar more clearly, and quite possibly go above the bar a small distance.

The actual bill text in question is framed as re-defining what Article II. Section 1 of the US Constitution actually means, not adding additional state requirements to the ballot (which is in a previous section, and is mostly about filing dates and other paperwork).

It's essentially a rejection of the 14th Amendment and post-14th case law.

BILL TEXT (Sorry for caps, that's how they wrote it), spoilered for size:

THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT POLITICAL PARTY'S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE‑PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
B. THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A SHALL INCLUDE REFERENCES TO AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE SWORN TO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY:
1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE. IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.
(b) HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.
(c) POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD SIGNED BY THE DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER BIRTH.
(d) EARLY CENSUS RECORD.
2. A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.
C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S BIRTH.
D. IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECEIVES ANY DOCUMENTS IN PLACE OF A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1 AND CANNOT DETERMINE IF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OR HOLD HEARINGS AND SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION.
E. IF BOTH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT CANDIDATE FAIL TO SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE. IF THE CANDIDATE AND NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT COMMITTEE SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, BUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE BELIEVES THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE.
F. A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THIS STATE HAS STANDING TO INITIATE AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THIS SECTION

EDIT: Removed all their irritating text-formating.

Apr 15, 2011#205

Krisken

Secretary of State is becoming a frighteningly powerful position in Arizona.

Apr 15, 2011#206

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Secretary of State is becoming a frighteningly powerful position in Arizona.

It is technically within his or her purview to check that sort of thing.

Apr 18, 2011#207

SpecialKO

Brewer vetoes AZ birther bill

As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates'… this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."

Apr 18, 2011#208

Krisken

Well color me surprised. :Leyla:

Apr 18, 2011#209

SpecialKO

Best comment from one of the reporting sites, which I closed and can't find again:

When it comes to circumcision certificates, I prefer to submit my long form

Apr 20, 2011#210

@Li3n

stienman said:
This is a republic. The states get to decide who they put on their individual ballots.

That's not what a republic is, i assume you meant a federation (federal state).

Apr 21, 2011#211

Krisken

Texas Governor Rick Perry suggests people of Texas should pray for rain to deal with drought.

Apr 21, 2011#212

Terrik

Well, it's not like it could hurt.

Apr 22, 2011#213

sixpackshaker

Krisken said:
Texas Governor Rick Perry suggests people of Texas should pray for rain to deal with drought.

Well every damned county in the state is under drought conditions. We've had 8 inches of rain since October. We are normally at 24-30 inches of rain in that time.

Pray for rain.

Apr 22, 2011#214

Krisken

You can have our rain. And our snow.

Apr 22, 2011#215

Covar

and my sword.

Apr 22, 2011#216

sixpackshaker

What's this snow thing you mention?

Apr 24, 2011#217

drifter

Not crazy so much as it is sad:

In Tennessee, it will soon be (explicitly) illegal for teachers to discuss homosexuality prior to 9th grade.

Also: foster child, you're not a real person, what makes you think you deserve new clothes?

To balance that out, here's a bit of a heartwarmer: church refuses to sign marriage licenses until same-sex marriage is legal.

Apr 25, 2011#218

sixpackshaker

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110425/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_transgender_marriage

Texas is set to revoke the right of the transgendered to marry. Do to a prior court ruling that gender is decided at birth. This could also turn out to be retro-active, and the current transgendered spouses may lose their marriage by this law.

Apr 25, 2011#219

Fun Size

Some local flavor. It's all worth the final sentence of the piece.

http://news.michiganradio.org/post/...-children-shop-clothing-thrift-stores?nopop=1

Apr 25, 2011#220

Krisken

Ah Michigan. Didn't one of their towns get taken over already by the financial adviser?

Apr 25, 2011#221

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Ah Michigan. Didn't one of their towns get taken over already by the financial adviser?

That one may or may not be kosher. ACLU is checking it out.

Apr 25, 2011#222

Hailey Knight

Fun Size said:
Some local flavor. It's all worth the final sentence of the piece.

http://news.michiganradio.org/post/...-children-shop-clothing-thrift-stores?nopop=1

Replying to that final sentence: Then what's the fucking point?

And going on the thread from the critic, saying foster kids have enough stacked against them, let's look at what the idiot Caswell says:

And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army,

Hey, shmuck. These kids don't even have dads. Fuck you.

Apr 26, 2011#223

SpecialKO

Someone should check the water cooler in the AZ governor's office. If this keeps up, Arizona might lose its standing in the race!

Apr 26, 2011#224

Baerdog

Bahahahahahahahahahaha, Jan Brewer actually did something useful. The world really IS going to end in 2012.

Fuck Jan Brewer.

Apr 26, 2011#225

Krisken

Ya know, Baer, I was thinking I would trade Governor's with you, but I'm not sure that would be in anyone's best interest.

Jun 8, 2011#226

Krisken

Back to Wisconsin. Republican leadership has entered fake Democrats (I'm not kidding) to force a primary and delay recall elections, allowing the Republicans more time to campaign.

Jun 8, 2011#227

AshburnerX

Ugh... this is so scummy, and not just because it's being done to prevent a legitimate recall election. But I ultimately doubt it will do more than delay.

Jun 8, 2011#228

Krisken

What really bothers me is all the money this will waste. So much for trying to save the state money (though I don't think anyone was fooled by that line).

Jun 9, 2011#229

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
What really bothers me is all the money this will waste. So much for trying to save the state money (though I don't think anyone was fooled by that line).

The state would only pay for the actual primary. The rest of it comes directly out of the pockets of the Democratic Party.

Jun 9, 2011#230

Krisken

Yeah, but that's $10,000 which could be spent somewhere else. It all adds up.

Jun 9, 2011#231

strawman

Darn straight. That $10 large should be lining my pockets.

Jun 9, 2011#232

Krisken

I bet a lot of state parks could use $10,000 to help with upkeep costs. Just sayin.

Jun 9, 2011#233

LordRendar

your contry is run by 2 parties that act like a pair of siblings that dont get along,dividing their room in the middle with a roll of duct-tape.

Jun 9, 2011#234

Krisken

Yes it is, only these siblings are both responsible for 307 million people and would rather see the other kid move away than work with them.

Jun 9, 2011#235

Chad Sexington

Krisken said:
Yes it is, only these siblings are both responsible for 307 million people and would rather see the other kid move away than work with them.

You mean like the time my brother and I shared an ant farm! I should probably mention they all died.

Jun 9, 2011#236

sixpackshaker

Chad Sexington said:
...they all died.

Sometimes I think that is the point of cheap pets, let kids know that death is permanent.

Jun 10, 2011#237

Krisken

Gah, fuck you Walker! Here he passes a law that makes it illegal to sell directly to restaurants and liquor stores.

Fuck you, Walker. Stop fucking with my New Glarus Brewery and East Side Brewery!

Jun 10, 2011#238

AshburnerX

I just read that article and I have NO IDEA what it's about. I'm guessing it's preventing people from selling non-big brand beers or some nonsense but they don't exactly spell it out.

Jun 10, 2011#239

Tress

Basically local breweries are no longer allowed to sell their alcohol to restaurants and stores directly. Now restaurants and stores can only get their alcohol from wholesale suppliers. At best it forces a middleman-type arrangement on independent breweries (which cuts into profits and raises prices), and at worst it will discourage/prevent independent breweries from distributing their alcohol elsewhere.

Jun 10, 2011#240

Krisken

Thank you Tress, you got it spot on.

Jun 11, 2011#241

AshburnerX

I foresee this getting over turned unless the same standard is applied to ALL products sold in the state. There's really no basis at all to deny that everyone should have to do it if Alcohol does and that would a monumental task.

Jun 11, 2011#242

Espy

Thats bullshit. Screw the people who passed that and whoever paid them off to pass it.

Jun 11, 2011#243

Hailey Knight

Tress said:
Basically local breweries are no longer allowed to sell their alcohol to restaurants and stores directly. Now restaurants and stores can only get their alcohol from wholesale suppliers. At best it forces a middleman-type arrangement on independent breweries (which cuts into profits and raises prices), and at worst it will discourage/prevent independent breweries from distributing their alcohol elsewhere.

Maybe they should throw all the booze off a boat.

In Boston.

Jun 12, 2011#244

Ravenpoe

Those fish would be FUCKED UP.

Jun 12, 2011#245

IronBrig4

I wonder if they'll have a sale on... beer-battered fish. :csi:

Jun 19, 2011#246

Krisken

Fantastic article at The Awl describing the fake Democrats being put up to force a primary for recall elections and the disasterous policies being put forth by Walker and cohorts in a rush before control of the state Senate changes hands.

Some of the most scathing comments:

The most surprising part of the court's ruling was the dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice, in no uncertain terms, accused the majority of disinformation: that the ruling "set forth their own version of facts without evidence."
That may sound tame by the screaming hyena standard of cable news political discourse, but in the legal world, it's a bona fide scandal and finally confirms that everything in Wisconsin, from the highest court in the land to the dirt, has become rabidly partisaned.

The most generous possible way to describe him is naive. James Smith is what would happen if Lennie from Of Mice and Men somehow became involved in All the King's Men.

By just getting on the ballot and forcing a primary, his candidacy is already successful, which means he is no longer necessary. Like the other dull patsies, Smith has been suckered into doing something the rest of the state's Republican leadership supports, but is too spineless and self-preservationist to volunteer for themselves.

Three-fourths of public schools and nearly every public library in the state accesses the Internet via WiscNet. The new language will require them to contract with private providers, multiplying schools' ISP costs just as Walker cuts their budgets and expands access, and state payments, to private charter schools.

This new unrestricted work schedule dovetails perfectly with the administration's massive cuts to education. It doesn't take a formal understanding of geometry to understand how groceries best fit into a paper bag.

Proving that the Wisconsin Republicans are such in name only, the legislature has also raised the ire of conservatives, with a proposal limiting the rights of individual land owners. A proposal receiving unanimous Republican Budget Committee support makes it easier for the state government to appropriate private land to build highways and power lines. No surprise that there is a corporate power line contractor backing the rule: American Transmission Company

Anyone interested in the dissenting state Supreme Court statement can read it at:
http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2011/2011ap000613.htm

It's a doozy, believe me. The dissenting opinion is filled with some of the most interesting lawyerese bitch slapping I've seen in a while.

Jun 25, 2011#247

Krisken

Apparently, and this is a weird one so hold on to something, State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly tried to choke his fellow colleague Justice Ann Bradley with both hands after she asked him to leave her office.

Classy.

Jul 1, 2011#248

Shakey

Screw you too Minnesota politicians.

Jul 1, 2011#249

Krisken

Don't worry, that will be coming directly to the national stage soon.

Jul 1, 2011#250

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Apparently, and this is a weird one so hold on to something, State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly tried to choke his fellow colleague Justice Ann Bradley with both hands after she asked him to leave her office.

Classy.

I almost put that story in my thread with the link being "Did State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser have to choke a bitch?" But I got distracted by work and forgot.

Jul 1, 2011#251

Krisken

Yeah. I know you think this is all funny, but I find the whole thing sad.

Jul 3, 2011#252

Espy

Krisken, did you hear the This American Life about the political situation in Wis. right now? It aired a few weeks ago. Super good.

Jul 3, 2011#253

Krisken

No, I didn't. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get to it later and bookmark it for now though!

Last night my friend Nick had his bachelor party and the philosophy professor from the local college was there. It was interesting to hear his thoughts on the subjects presented here. He said that he is apolitical and in the end there is only one thing which determines the motivation of those in power- follow the money.

Jul 3, 2011#254

Espy

Yeah, check it out, it's very thought provoking.

Jul 3, 2011#255

Krisken

This is a fantastic piece. Thanks for the opportunity to hear it (There is a lot I agree with, especially how it took people by surprise that the policies caused such a rift).

So much for civility, I guess. As long as Walker is in office and pushing an extreme agenda, I don't see how things will improve.

Jul 8, 2011#256

jwhouk

Update: my (new) state senator was one of the 14. He's had signs up since May. Haven't seen any other signs besides Simac (Tea Party Palin clone, apparently).

However, a new billboard outside of town: "If you didn't report to work for three weeks, would you still have a job?" I almost want to say, "Yes, because I'd use sick leave conversion, just like the Republican lawmakers do."

Jul 8, 2011#257

Krisken

jwhouk said:
Update: my (new) state senator was one of the 14. He's had signs up since May. Haven't seen any other signs besides Simac (Tea Party Palin clone, apparently).

However, a new billboard outside of town: "If you didn't report to work for three weeks, would you still have a job?" I almost want to say, "Yes, because I'd use sick leave conversion, just like the Republican lawmakers do."

Ugh. They spoke with constituents, made people aware of the stupidity going on in Madison, and still did their work from a shitty hotel room hundreds of miles away because the Governor threatened to have them forcibly brought to the capitol if they were in the state. Sounds like they weren't playing hookie to me.

I know you know this, man. I find the whole thing awful frustrating.

Jul 9, 2011#258

@Li3n

Talking about crazy states: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/philadelphia-saves-2-million-by-not-prosecuting-pot-smokers.html

That's sarcasm btw.

Jul 11, 2011#259

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Talking about crazy states: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/philadelphia-saves-2-million-by-not-prosecuting-pot-smokers.html

That's sarcasm btw.

Maybe the city of brotherly love will actually come closer to its name now.

Jul 11, 2011#260

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Talking about crazy states: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/philadelphia-saves-2-million-by-not-prosecuting-pot-smokers.html

That's sarcasm btw.

"I can put someone in jail for 90 days because they possess crack. But if we don't get them the help they need for their addiction, when they get out of jail, they're just going to be a 90-day-older crack addict," he explains. "We have to treat drug addiction as a public-health problem, not just a criminal-justice problem."

You'd never see any level of saving or thought like that on the federal level.

Jul 12, 2011#261

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
You'd never see any level of saving or thought like that on the federal level.

Well they wouldn't want all those drug dealing jobs to end up in China because of a non-competitive enough market...

Jul 12, 2011#262

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
::some stuff::

Nevermind that shit, what happened to your name, son?

Jul 12, 2011#263

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
Nevermind that shit, what happened to your name, son?

Christ.

Jul 12, 2011#264

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
Christ.

You found Christ? Was he on a grilled cheese sandwich?

Jul 12, 2011#265

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
You found Christ? Was he on a grilled cheese sandwich?

Don't drink and drive.

Jul 12, 2011#266

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
Don't drink and drive.

'Cause you might spill your drink.

Jul 12, 2011#267

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
'Cause you might spill your drink.

It was time for a change, but I don't have a reason.

Jul 12, 2011#268

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
It was time for a change, but I don't have a reason.

Good enough for me, sir.

Jul 13, 2011#269

LordRendar

Small question,why do Republicans try to reduce the debt of the USA by doing tax cuts?
It dosnt really make sense to me.

Jul 13, 2011#270

Terrik

The theory always was that if people have more money to spend, they'll probably spend more money. In China, I'm taxed 20% of my salary. Because of that, I'm weary of taking teaching jobs that "tack on" housing allowances or bonus to the monthly salary as opposed to making it a separate payment because otherwise it won't amount to much at the end of the month and the cost of living in Shanghai is very high, so I'm also less likely to make big purchases here as opposed to when I was living in say, Tianjin where the Koreans made separate housing and bonus payments so it would be under the tax bracket, allowing me to keep more money, and allowing me to make bigger purchases like an HD TV and contribute to the local economy. Nobody likes their money taken away. As far the US goes, I don't believe the US government under either party has made the case that they use tax dollars effectively. Are Democrats advocating an increase in taxes while reducing spending? If so, awesome. If not, get your hands off my money.

Jul 13, 2011#271

Tress

Terrik said:
Are Democrats advocating an increase in taxes while reducing spending? If so, awesome. If not, get your hands off my money.

Yes. Obama is actually. The plan calls for closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, plus raising taxes on the highest bracket. This would go along with spending cuts. Meanwhile, the Republican position is that no taxes should be raised ever for any reason at all no matter what. They just want huge cuts to close the gap.

Jul 13, 2011#272

strawman

People like to throw around the idea that republicans are pandering to the wealthy, but keep in mind that it's not an invalid fiscal policy.

If taxes are lower, in theory, such people will spend more money, resulting in more cash flow through their community and the companies they patronize.

If the taxes are higher, that money instead goes to the gov't.

Some argue that the gov't isn't going to spend it any better, and possibly worse (social programs can't create jobs if money isn't flowing through the community).

Whereas the opposition suggests that people who have more money should be taxed at a higher rate, and not because they incur a greater public cost - simply because they have more money.

I have my opinions on the matter, but honestly I don't have enough information and experience to judge one way or the other.

However, I keep hearing people imply that the republican plan has no fiscal value, that it's nothing more than pandering to the wealthy, which leads me to believe that some people are ignoring what the value truly is so they can engage in petty propaganda.

Jul 13, 2011#273

Krisken

My problem with that theory is the last 10 years doesn't support it. Jobs still got cut despite huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Wages went up disproportionately for the wealthy compared to the middle and the poor. It just isn't holding water, and until some evidence of an improved economy due to the increased spending of the rich or wages of the poor and middle class improves when these cuts are put in place, I just don't buy it.

I just don't have a violin small enough to play for the richest Americans at this time.

Jul 13, 2011#274

LordRendar

From what I think,there arent enough "Wealthy" people to offset the kind of spending all of those normal people would do.And do wealthy people really spend their money in the US? Dosnt most of it go somewhere abroad?
Wouldnt Taxbreaks for the Poor and Middle Class be more feasible,since they will spend their money in American stores?

Jul 13, 2011#275

@Li3n

Actually i propose something simpler...

Lets say in one place a X costs 20$, while in another 40$ (but you get better warranty and a nicer looking package)... now you used to have 100 buck, but now you have 200... do you now buy the 40$ version, or do you just buy more of the 20$ version?

Jul 13, 2011#276

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
Actually i propose something simpler...

Lets say in one place a X costs 20$, while in another 40$ (but you get better warranty and a nicer looking package)... now you used to have 100 buck, but now you have 200... do you now buy the 40$ version, or do you just buy more of the 20$ version?

That depends on the product's elasticity, iirc. I won't buy two heart transplants, I might buy two jugs of milk instead of one.

Jul 13, 2011#277

AshburnerX

What, is no one going to mention the robocalls that registered Democrats received on the day of the Recall election?

Jul 13, 2011#278

Krisken

I wish I was surprised. As the article says, this has happened before. Couple this with the painfully bad voter ID laws and I'm amazed anyone has been able to vote at all.

Jul 14, 2011#279

ScytheRexx

Krisken said:
I wish I was surprised. As the article says, this has happened before. Couple this with the painfully bad voter ID laws and I'm amazed anyone has been able to vote at all.

Frankly I can't even think about your state anymore. Every single time I do, my blood boils beyond reasoning. I have never seen such a morally and ethically bankrupt clusterfuck and just thinking about the corruption and fraud.... I just want to slap those people.

Jul 14, 2011#280

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
I won't buy two heart transplants,

So the 2nd time you'll just let your heart fail so someone else can get one... that's admirable... (aka that's besides the point i was making)

Jul 14, 2011#281

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
So the 2nd time you'll just let your heart fail so someone else can get one... that's admirable... (aka that's besides the point i was making)

aka your point isn't clear at all, because some things are quality over quantity, some are quantity over quality, and some are needed in a predictable number with less regard to price.

Jul 14, 2011#282

Dei

California, go!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.secession/index.html?hpt=hp_p1&iref=NS1

Jul 14, 2011#283

Krisken

There goes California, trying to be Texas again.

Jul 15, 2011#284

Tress

Krisken said:
There goes California, trying to be Texas again.

That assclown has become somewhat of a joke around here. It's typical whining from the conservative spots in SoCal. They don't seem to mind taking water and other resources from NorCal, but don't want to be associated with the more liberal areas like Berkeley.

Jul 15, 2011#285

Denbrought

Hmmm... This is 25 years ahead of schedule for the Shadowrun timeline. But then again, we skipped the Israeli nukes, and the VITAS virus is being laaaaate :<

Jul 15, 2011#286

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
aka your point isn't clear at all, because some things are quality over quantity, some are quantity over quality, and some are needed in a predictable number with less regard to price.

My point doesn't need to take those into account because even so the cheaper option is always better when it comes to making a profit of labor...

Aug 2, 2011#287

@Li3n

And here's Michigan: http://www.politicususa.com/en/supreme-court-dow-michigan

Aug 2, 2011#288

SpecialKO

@Li3n said:
And here's Michigan: http://www.politicususa.com/en/supreme-court-dow-michigan

I might actually want to blame that one on the Supreme Court more than the Michigan judge. But yes, that one is awful.

Aug 3, 2011#289

Krisken

The day after declaring publicly they had contacted over 1 million Wisconsin voters, We are Wisconsin headquarters is burned down in a fire. Cause and starting location of fire is as yet unknown.

Politico reports Wisconsin Democratic voters are being targeted with mailings that have the wrong dates for the recall elections by 2 days. You want your proof of voter fraud? This is what it looks like, not that half assed 11 people accidentally voted in the wrong place or 3 people voted twice.

Can't make this shit up.

Aug 3, 2011#290

DarkAudit

The only thing left is for the Koch brothers to send in the thugs to rough up potential voters in the name of "security".

Aug 10, 2011#291

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
I might actually want to blame that one on the Supreme Court more than the Michigan judge. But yes, that one is awful.

But the Supreme Court at least said that the problem was that the discrimination was done at stores that are all over, while the poisoning wasn't exactly non-localized. So it's 50-50.

Forums