TomAiello

Are you kidding? The dollar will never be that strong. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Now imagine if we cut _all_ spending by 2/3... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

She's from rural Alaska, where people still leave their cars unlocked, with the engines running, when they go into the grocery store to do their shopping. You want someone as paranoid as you, you'll have to vote for someone from a big city, like L.A., or Chicago. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. I think that virtually all of those functions are either (a) unnecessary, or (b) better performed by private companies. And, don't you think you're overstating Gawain's case there? He was proposing shutdown of federal services. That does not include (local) police, fire and EMS, which are generally maintained by entities that are not allowed to run a budget deficit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

They're not racists, they're just taking affirmative actions to level the playing field. Seriously, if you look at actual voting statistics, you'll find that black voters admit that race was a factor in their voting decisions far more often than white voters--and that's just what they admit. If you examine the actual voting patterns, a caucasian is overwhelmingly more likely to vote for a non-caucasian than an african-american (for example) is to vote for a non-african-american, in races where there is a clear racial choice on the ballot. So, yes, I'm willing to say that, in voting patterns, blacks are significantly more "racist" (i.e. likely to be swayed by a candidates race) than whites. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hey, nationalization has worked out so well everywhere else... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't buy that. You could just as easily eliminate the mountain of debt by simply saying "the government will shut down for one year" and paying things off instead of buying new "things." Being quite a bit less extreme, you could easily pay off the debt by simply halving federal expenditures. I don't believe that raising taxes is the answer. I certainly don't believe that it's every the _only possible_ answer. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I've been following it for some time (like years) now. I honestly don't believe that Mugabe will share power. It's my (somewhat cynical) assessment that this is all just a play for time/breathing room on Mugabe's part. I expect to see him revert to his usual thuggishness in short order. For what it's worth, I don't believe the US should intervene there (or anywhere else, for that matter) because I don't want to spend my money trying to fix things all over the world. I believe that fixing things in Zimbabwe is pretty much the business of people in Zimbabwe. Were I living in Zimbabwe, I actually think I'd favor a full on, massively violent, throw 'em up against the wall style revolution. Things there are so screwed up that the best course of action is to hit the reset button and start over. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

His lips move. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Although Obama says he will raise taxes on folks making more than 250k, his actual record shows votes in favor of tax increases on people making as little as 42k. While I appreciate that he may be planning to change his behavior, I'm still a little concerned that he may be saying one thing now, and later may change his mind (remember "read my lips"?), and decide that a little bit more taxation, on folks making a little less money, might not be so bad after all. Oddly, I have the same problem with McCain in reverse. I fear that he may do the things he's saying he will, but hope that, if elected, he'll turn out to continue acting in many of the same ways he has in the past (despite his promises to parts of his party to change those ways). Basically, it comes down to whether you (a) believe what politicians are promising, or (b) believe that they'll generally continue to behave as they have in the past. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Come to the land of the free... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In his defense, George Mason is a notoriously Libertarian institution, and this particular professor is really a bona fide Libertarian intellectual. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If the party affiliation was that important, there'd be no need for primaries, would there? Heck, Ron Paul, George Bush, John McCain, they're all the same, right? While we're at it, let's just trade out Barack Obama for Walter Mondale. Same party means they're just the same, right? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Huh? Olympics happen every 4 years. US presidential election happens every 4 years. Years in which the US presidential election has coincided with the summer Olympics: 2008 (Beijing, McCain/Obama) 2004 (Athens, Bush/Kerry) 2000 (Sydney, Bush/Gore) 1996 (Atlanta, Clinton/Dole) 1992 (Barcelona, Clinton/Bush) 1988 (Seoul, Dukakis/Bush) 1984 (Los Angeles, Reagan/Mondale) 1980 (Moscow, Reagan/Carter) And so on, every 4 years back to the beginning of the modern Olympics, and on into the future. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Isn't this the woman who makes more than $300k a year as a hospital administrator? Anyone who's going to argue that it's a "non-profit" hospital, please read this WSJ article about non-profit hospitals. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I was hoping to see Palin v. Obama as 1 on 1 basketball, actually. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are you saying that if the government doesn't provide some entitlement program all sick people everywhere will die? Does everyone who isn't on some sort of government assistance die when they become ill? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I hadn't seen any discussion of the actual books. Can you point me at a list of the actual books discussed (not speculation about what they might have been, but an actual list)? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Our local library here has a list of books they won't put in the library because they are "inappropriate to the general library population." They include some very explicit sex books, which were removed from sections accessible to children, some neo-nazi hate books, which were removed from the library completely, and several others. If that's the most disturbing thing about a small town mayor, they probably share it with a huge number of librarians and city councils. Have you called up your local public library and asked them if there are any books they won't put on their shelves? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How much state funding do you think there is for abortion? I'd say that at least 13 states provide public funding for abortion, although the ACLU says that it's 17 states. In terms of dollars? I don't know, but it's obviously something. ***Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY, and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV). Source: American Civil Liberties Union. I'm pro-Choice. I don't think that the government should regulate or ban abortions. I was trying to explain the thinking of people whose views I don't share on this issue. I am also a Libertarian. I don't think the government should be providing funding for any health care, including abortions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. i've taken an Eotech off the rail and put it back on--it didn't require re-zeroing. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

To vehemently pro-Life folks, it's clearly the most important issue. Look at it this way, if you believe that abortion is murder, there are a huge number of murders being committed, often with state support (i.e. funding). That's a fundamental wrong on the level of the holocaust. If that was what you believed, wouldn't that make this far and away the most important issue in every election? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I doubt it, which I think is a shame. I'm quite pro-Choice, but I also think that Roe is a horrible decision. Trying to find a "penumbra" of non-enumerated rights in a clause specifically enumerating things is pretty silly. The court should, instead, have looked directly to the amendment discussing non-enumerated rights. Of course, that might have led us down some roads that those in favor of reducing citizen rights might not like..."you mean there are other rights in there--no, we can't have that!" A better solution would be; a) Rule that the right to decide resides with the States, under the 9th amendment. This (rightfully) respects the federal nature of our system and devolves the power to the separate states. or, if you're more pro-choice; b) Rule that the right to decide resides with the people, individually, under the 9th amendment. I'm not sure that I'd personally go with that decision, since I'm not sure that the Supremes ought to be ruling about the division of rights between the people and the several states, or, and this is what I'd go for; c) Simply rule that the 9th amendment reserves these rights to either the individual people or the several states, and bow out of further decision making, rather than trying to micromanage a federal system that wasn't made for that sort of oversight. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I actually read an article about a woman who had run such an advert, and had things turn out really well with her adoptive family. She was in her 40's, if I recall correctly. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Ron Paul is a republican, and I'd expect a Paul presidency to cut spending, taxes and debt. As far as McCain and Obama, I think they're both likely to keep the government living beyond it's means. They'll just spend our children's money on different things. I personally prefer McCain by a hair because wars generally end at some point, but entitlement programs go on forever, growing bigger and more bloated all the time. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com