uncool2pillow

Wow, couldn't disagree more about the live experience. Based upon what I'd been told, I was kinda expecting what you describe. I'd missed them at their rawest prime and they were now basically the bluegrass Jonas Bros. I saw them at Des Moines' 80/35 festival and was completely blown away. I'm not sure I'm terribly about the new record, mostly because of the production, not the songs. I&L&Y has some great songs, but Rubin made them a bit too slick for my taste.

This may just be the correct answer.

You miss my point entirely. I don't think that's what Dems believe, but that's how a republican might label a democrat to sound negative the way you labeled Republican views. To try to answer your questions quickly, I'm tired. 1. Yes and yes, so let's consider nuclear among other non carbon energy sources. 2. Where that is the real motive (in Iowa the republican secretary of state and dem atty gen are working together to purge voter rosters) they're asses. 3. Yes, but govt intrusion to stop things like this have other negative effects. 4. See answer #3. Only less so here. There are ways

I try to reply with the same amount of respect each post shows. When you define your opponent by your terms, I find that disrepectful. It's exactly the tactics that Limbaugh and FoxNews use. And IRDB, it doesn't really say anything that's wrong, but it's on the wording and the connotation. For example, I could twist it around to say democrats believe in the environment before jobs.

I hate typing on iPads btw. And of course it sounds close to you. I could make a similar list of what Republicans say Dems stand for and what we say we stand for, but it's an insult to your and my intelligence.

Candidate are not beholden to every plank of the platform. This is really such a bad an stupid straw an argument it doesn't warrant any more of a response than that. You define yourself and your opponents by the terms you find most appealing. This is FoxNews level discussion now.

I call myself a Republican becuase they narrowly (quite narrowly) are closer to my views than Democrats. I feel like I'm more of an independent, but I want to participate in primaries and caucuses. I don't have to acknowledge or agree with anything.

No I don't. It's the views of the activists who are committed to going to district, state, and national conventions; not the rank and file. I'd have to think a while to say absolute worst, but if not, it's damned close.

Platforms are meaningless. Republican politicians (or Democrats too if any signed) value Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge way more than their party platform. But, yeah, there's some crazy shit in it. The state ones get even goofier. A lot of the worst crap gets filtered out at the national level.

Sorry to go off topic, but I was so shocked at that story. Take the Clemens discussion over tonte real baseball thread.

Fantastic story!

I've been to four 1. Wrigley 2. Kaufman - A big pleasant surprise, and this was before the recent improvements. 3. Metrodome - ugh... 4. Met Stadium (Twins stadium before dome). I was 5, I don't really remember it. I seem to remember relief pitchers coming from the bullpen in a convertible. As I type this Roger Clemens is on Baseball Tonight pitching for the independent league. WTF??

I was surprised how often the Dead came up as an influence in Our Band Could Be Your Life. CCR and the Dead were huge influences on the hardcore bands whether you can hear it in the music or not.

Cat Scratch Fever is an awesome riff, but that's about it.

Has anyone made this case here? Obviously I'm one of the more right-leaning people here. It it wrong for me to appreciate political music even if I don't appreciate the politics it espouses?

You quote Sanders as saying SS is fine for 21 years. Yesterday, you said Republicans destroyed it. Which is it? Maybe that they want to destroy it

That's interesting analysis. I am so glad you so easily gleaned the "TRUTH" from this chart. A few points... 1) What specific policy changes did Republicans make that affected SS solvency? You know the truth, this should be an easy question for you to answer. 2) This chart has a helluva lot more to do with demographics (aging baby boomers and recent unemployment affecting SS revenue) than it does with policy. 3) Republican periods of Congressional and/or WH dominance actually show more recent stronger solvency under Republicans than Democrats (90-91, 2000-03). What tweaks? Gore'

Some interested listeners, though.

I was being flippant

Since it came right after my post and was on the same topic, it seemed like a direct reply. Sorry if it wasn't intended in the way I took it. I've seen that pie chart before, but you're right. Doesn't include entitlements and we need to look at the whole budget, including entitlements. Further, cutting the military sounds fine, and it might make sense in certain areas. I would like to see military outlays from that chart broken down further to look at weapons expenses, soliders' benefits & salary, etc. It might make cuts there seem not so easy.

1) There was no parody. Just stupid condescending stereotypes. 2) If your attempt at parody is all you have, then your arguments must be feeble. Said Romney and Ryan want to put black people in chains.

I agree with this. It may be more reasonable for medicare (make the wealthy pay a premium -- even my 70+, retired, affluent parents think this is reasonable for them) than for social security.

Good lord, one cannot enter into a serious discussion w/o throwing around stupid shit like this. Yes, I am a gun toting, tobacky-chewing, flag-waving redneck who wants nothing but a big army, and low taxes for billionaires. Social security is going broke. Raising taxes to pay for it should be on the table, but it's not going to be enough. It's no wonder nothing ever gets done with entitlement reform when even bringing up the subject results in a reply like this.

Kevin, the system as it is currently set up is doomed to fail. We cannot continue to pay the low rate we're paying and keep paying out retirees as the baby boom retires. You aren't for privatization and I have reservations about that as well, though the long term historical the stock market is up and as people age they generally move from riskier to safer investments. What do we do to save it? Increase the tax rate? Means tests? Increase retirement age?

The age we begin getting social security should be raised to 70 for anyone currently 50-55 and younger. It's never changed while life expectancy has. No idea how many years of solvency that adds and what it does to the job market by keeping people in the workforce longer, but it seems like a no brainer.