SuperJerk

Yes, Al Gore's invested in a company that provides the type of solutions he advocates. It's called capitalism. Marvin's theory about Gore presumes it is a hoax, but sides-steps the mountain of evidence that this is a real problem. Carbon emissions are proven to have an effect on temperature, but global warming opponents insist that its all part of a natural cycle, as if the planet could just start becoming warmer one day because it hadn't done it in a while.

Some light reading from the fine folks at Newsweek... The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama with a 15-point lead over McCain. Someone is finally talking about the Dole/McCain similarities besides me. John Kerry wants to be Secretary of State.

Assuming the credit card company charges a percentage of the transaction to the retailers, instead of a fixed rate per transaction or a flat monthly fee (I don't know which it is), the pay at the pump method saves money in terms of man hours for extra people and or time to handle a vast increase in register transactions and (as Jingus pointed out) reduced risk of robbery. On the other hand, it probably hurts in terms of merchadise sold out of the store (probably the real reason why some stores--if any--are switching back to register transactions).

I found this article and thought it was interesting, but flawed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25284981/ The people who made the original study maybe had a point in a better way to convince people to buy more efficient cars, but the reasoning demonstrated is dumb. First of all, if the couple is using 200 gallons a year, and the family is using 500 gallons a year, the family is only saving more because their starting point was different than the couples, so they really aren't doing better. Second, the term "gallons per mile" is misleading because that's not what this is. This is gallons per year. Gallons per mile would be a number of gallons used divided by the number of miles driven. If you figured it up that way, a car that is twice as efficient would still give you a number that is twice as big. So either the people who wrote the study are incapable of correctly labelling a simple concept, or the guy who wrote the article completely misunderstood the study and needs to be punched in the face.

Adlai Stevenson Anymore, they usually don't even let you be the nominee if you've been the loosing VP on a ticket. Look at Edwards, Lieberman, Quayle (had so much trouble raising money he dropped out before his official declaration), Dole in 1980, and Ed Muskie. Mondale barely did it, and it took Bob Dole 20 years to recover from that. And both of those guys got trounced in the general election.

I don't care because I'm guessing the people who think Obama's campaign committed a serious error by not letting these women sit behind him are not really concerned with the plight of Muslim-Americans. They have bigger concerns, like whether or not someone should wear a checkered scarf in a Dunkin Donuts ad.

Wait. I messed around a little bit, and found that calculator says any number for population above the magic figure of 1,008,502 automatically gives you a total of 385 for your sample size. Any number from 1008503 to filling the box with infinite nines, same answer. Obviously something ain't right here.

That's like saying someone failed to identify the color of air.

I recently read an article explaining why it was more likely for a Democrat to get screwed by the electoral college than a Republican. 3 of the 4 of the biggest states tend to go Democrat. A Democrat can get superfluous popular votes in NY, California, and Illinois (popular votes far beyond what's necessary to win the state but doing nothing to help with the electoral map) while Republicans are going to run away with the popular vote in Texas.

I was thinking the same thing would happen in that scenario.

So any spike in unemployment, even those 9 months after the last modest minimum wage increase must be from a raise in the minimum wage and not other economic forces such as the recession? from your source... As you can see, the increasing levels in overall unemployment rates started before the last meager minimum wage hike took effect, and there have been other times when unemployment rates were vastly increased during times of recession and there was not alteration in the minimum wage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/oba...cing/index.html There are so many ways to spin this to the public as a positive, and most voters really don't understand the campaign finance system, I doubt this will have any political downside for Obama. True, he broke a promise, but you have to admit, he's got a good point about opting out because of the 527 groups. The upsides are obvious: he can easily outspend John McCain, he can control his message better without relying on 527 middle-men, and he can tout his dependence on grass-roots support.

My source is 2 years old but it seems to be the most current available statistics from the Dept of Labor and I cant see it being too much different now. SOURCE: US Department of Labor 25% is a significant number for actual teenagers, and the under 25 category is half of minimum wage earners. If your argument is that a minimum wage increase causes higher unemployment, and you can only show a spike for 25% of the people on minimum wage, you really have not proven anything.

As much as I find the guy entertaining, I'll be the first to admit Olbermann is too much of a partisan to pull off such an important gig. In the flood of old Russert interviews on TV this weekend, they had one with Dick Cheney from Sept. 16th, 2001, where he was explaining al Qaeda and how the administration was looking at the information, and it felt wierd because what he was saying seemed honest and accurate and suddenly I remembered what it was like to trust the Bush Administration.

All I'm going to say to Marvin about the minimum wage is that his numbers and entire argument are based on the false premise that it's primarily teenagers who are on it. And as far as me being such a shitty poster goes, I'm going to refute that with something I said earlier that everyone was SO SURE that I was just SO WRONG about... and compare it to something I just pulled off of cnn.com... Doesn't seem quite so impossible now, does it? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/swi...ref=mpstoryview But don't take my word for it...HISTORIANS AGREE: McCAIN IS FUCKED...for a bunch of reasons I've already mentioned, of course.

Wait...you're saying the Republican's tax plan would favor the wealthy and the Democrat's would favor the middle class? WTF? Is that really the best rebuttal you've got? It's good because it's true. There's a reason the average American cringes whenever an actor opens their trap about politics: because 95% of the time, it comes off like something a spoiled trust fund kid would say. Even if it's correct, it's still obnoxious. Nobody takes that kid seriously. Therefore, nobody wants to hear a movie star like Cusack or Sean Penn has to say. Arnold's views sound like the second coming of Thomas Jefferson, however. Or maybe you only have a problem with hearing views they don't like. The last time I checked, there was no clause in the First Amendment excluding liberal actors from the right to free speech.

No, you're confusing the issue. Amnesty for those who are already here and allowing more to come in illegally aren't the same thing. Also, slavery isn't the same as hiring illegal immigrants because they are free to leave. It's apples and oranges. We are already building a fence and fining those who break the law, but that's not really working, is it? We need to document the ones that are here, but the only way to effectively do that is to acknowlege the contribution they make to the economy and allow them to have a way to stay. The current system isn't okay, and neither McCain, Bush, or Obama support it. And I don't think a minimum wage hike, the last of which was over a decade ago at the federal level, has anything to do with the current unemployment rate.

YOU MANIACS! GODS DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL! Anyways...my guess is that the show takes place in the ancient past, and that the two human-Cylon hybrids, Nickie and Hera, will become the progenitors of the new human race. Or something.

You don't think slapping labels on the candidates, the way you are doing, is really a good way to assess them, either? All someone has to do is slap the "big government tax and spend" label on someone and you fall in line opposing them just like you're told. And John McCain actually had a rational, pragmatic approach to immigration, but because of this irrational "deport 'em all" mentality, it had no chance of being enacted. Many jobs that native-born Americans won't take are done by immigrants, and blindly kicking all the illegal aliens out of the country would hurt the U.S. economy. It is important to document who is in the country. Since we need them to be here, and we also need to keep track of them, the amnesty idea makes perfect sense. However, because laws were broken, these people are looked at as the moral equivalent to thieves and drug dealers that must be eradicated from our society.

You are confusing longevity with competence. I'm waiting for someone to convince me that McCain is the most competent person running for president. While it is true he is a legitimate American hero for his courage during the Vietnam War, I am not convinced he has good judgement in the world of public policy. The ONLY evidence of McCain's political competence is his length of service, and given the number of really bad ideas he's supported in that quarter century, that's hardly a convincing argument. For example, Obama, even without McCain decades of experience, was able to correctly assess the need for and judge the outcome of the Iraq War. The law that McCain is best known for, McCain-Feingold, is a mess that has only created new problems instead of solving old ones. If you actually look at McCain's stands on the issues and choices he's made, McCain's judgement is very suspect. Obama's demonstrated better judgement in his 12 years in politics (8 at the state level, 3 at the federal level) than McCain has in his 25. McCain's voted with the Bush Administration 95% of the time in 2007. McCain votedagainst the Katrina investigation, then lied about it. McCain economic proposals are ridicules. McCain continues to support the Iraq War. McCain has a misunderstanding of Iran's government, and seems eager to go war with them. Please explain to me how any of this shows McCain would make a better president than Barack Obama.

I agree. He's actually a politician now. John Cusack is not. Bit of a difference there. Please explain: How did Arnold run for governor if he wasn't out there telling people who to vote for? But you're saying it is okay for actors to run for office, but not voice their political views? That's absurd! And Arnold was involved in politics before he ran for governor. He campaigned for Republicans for almost the last two decades, and was only floated as a possible candidate because of that campaigning. Arnold got elected because his movies are popular and he's well-liked by the public. Somehow that makes him qualified to be governor, but it makes John Cusack unqualified to voice political views.

I happened to watch Meet the Press this past weekend. Its really sad that was his final show. He set the standard for political journalism.

Sci-Fi.com has been streaming the finale all day, at the top of each hour. http://www.scifi.com/

This never gets old... (from 2007)

I agree. In other news, it appears the SECRET OBAMA TAPE mentioned earlier doesn't really exist... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_...ieNi7qpdDhh24cA