http://gamingtrend.com
November 22, 2014, 02:40:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
161  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Man of Steel 2, or whatever they will call the next Superman movie on: July 05, 2013, 02:19:12 AM
I do wonder what they'll name it. If they go with Superman "titles," then there's "Man of Tomorrow" and "Last Son of Krypton", which might have made more sense for this one. Or could, perhaps, the biggest film of 2016 be called "The Big Blue Boy Scout"?
162  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Budget cuts lead to assault and rape in Oregon on: June 18, 2013, 02:30:30 PM

Quote from: ATB on June 18, 2013, 12:22:37 PM

300 Million for Syria but no money for police.

You do realize that, by law, money allocated by Congress for discretionary spending for military operations or aid overseas cannot be redirected to domestic funding priorities, don't you?
163  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Budget cuts lead to assault and rape in Oregon on: June 05, 2013, 12:06:11 AM

Quote from: ATB on May 22, 2013, 12:38:09 PM

Don't pay reps and senators for a day. Again 10s of millions.

Point of information: you can't do that. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1992, states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." Ergo, you can't pass a law that sequesters, docks, denies or otherwise reduces the pay of sitting members of Congress to provide incentive for them to do something.

Also, not paying Senators and Representatives for a day would save only $255,000.
164  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS: OK to take DNA from Arrestees on: June 03, 2013, 05:48:33 PM

Quote from: hepcat on June 03, 2013, 02:36:04 PM

Quote from: ATB on June 03, 2013, 02:35:22 PM

Quote from: hepcat on June 03, 2013, 02:34:34 PM

We fingerprint them, you know.

Are you being glib or do you clearly not see a difference between the two?

No, I'm being serious.  What makes this so shockingly different?  At least enough so that it warrants the claim of fascism?

You can't take my fingerprints and use them to create a clone of me then take a picture of the clone at the scene of the crime as part of your plan to frame me. Obviously.
165  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Health Care reform on: June 03, 2013, 03:06:14 PM
Another point: even for folks (mostly health young people who are among the 3% to 8% of the market that will purchase individual insurance from an exchange) whose premiums may rise under the ACA, the value of insurance plans under the ACA will be dramatically higher than the value of most plans today. Under the ACA, there will no longer be maximum annual or lifetime benefit caps. Under the ACA, preventative care and examinations will be covered, which are not covered under many health care plans today. Under the ACA, the total amount of out of pocket expenditures will have caps, as well -- and far lower than the cheap high deductible, low premium sort of plans that the Forbes article is discussing.
166  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Health Care reform on: June 02, 2013, 04:04:45 AM

Quote from: ATB on May 31, 2013, 02:59:45 PM


As the only person on this board who has actually been in briefings with California state officials about the health care exchanges, I feel compelled to point out that this Forbes article is deeply misleading. The "rate shock" that most people have been discussing is that the projected rates for the key Silver Plans for people in their 30s, 40s and 50s are lower than expected. The vast majority of insured people, both self- and group-insured, are "Silver" Plans. Almost no one above 40 purchases the equivalent of a "Bronze" plan because they don't cover the sort of care people in those age categories need. Most Bronze plan purchasers will be in their 20s and early 30s.

The example this article hinges on, a 25 year old male self-insuring non-smoker, is an extreme outlier. First, of course they pick a male because for all plans the fact that insurers can no longer discriminate based on gender produces rate improvements for women. Second, very few 25 year olds purchase insurance on the individual market. A 25 year old whose parents are insured can stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 27. Many 25 year olds are still university students, and thus eligible for a student group plan. Many others are eligible for employer-based group plans. None of these people will be impacted by pricing on the exchange or see their situation change dramatically. Third, those who are working and not eligible for a group plan are much more likely to fall into a financial tier that receives premium cost support than an older worker.

The fact is that the average self-insured person in California is between the ages of 30 and 55 and purchases individual coverage equivalent to a "Silver Plan" tier under the new California exchange. The average change in monthly premium prices for individuals in that range varies based on age, but for someone in their early 40s it's about $100 less per month. Of all the Silver Plans covering the key age range, only a handful showed any price increase, most of them around 2%.

Even before the exchanges go into effect the ACA is holding down premium increases. The year before rate hike information reporting and medical loss ratio regulations (which require insurers to spend 85% of premiums on medical care or return the excess money to purchasers), around 75% of plans saw an annual premium increase of more than 10%. Last year only 14% of insurance plans saw an increase of 10% or more.

Millions of young adults between the ages of 22 and 27 are now covered under their parents plans.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans unable to purchase insurance at any price before the ACA was enacted are now covered under the Federally-subsidized High Risk Protection Pool, and in January 2014 will be able to purchase regular health insurance at prevailing market rates just like anyone else.

Hundreds of thousands of children previously unable to receive comprehensive medical insurance due to preexisting conditions are now fully insured.

Billions of dollars have been returned to businesses and individuals due to Medical Loss Ratio rebate requirements.

Senior citizens no longer have to deal with the Medicare drug coverage "donut hole" that put many in a position of choosing between food and medicine.

The solvency of Medicare has already been extended by more than two years, without deep benefit cuts to the program, simply through the implementation of the ACA's Medicare reforms.

In every state to unveil their initial healthcare exchange plans the initial rates for the most commonly purchased plans for ages 30 to 55 have been lower than expected.
167  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rand Paul defends Apple's tax avoidance on: May 25, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
I'd be in favor of dramatically reducing the tax rate, down to something like 10%, closing all loopholes (except those necessary to provide for financing of *very large* industrial or equipment purchases), and taxing overseas earnings in as un-hostile a way as possible. My notion is to tax foreign earnings at the same rate as domestic earnings *minus* all income taxes paid to foreign entities. This would be a straight on tax reduction, not a reduction in taxable income.

So if company A earned $100 million overseas, their tax bill on that money would be $10 million. However, if they paid $3.5 million in overseas income taxes, their tax to the US government would only be $6.5 million. If their taxes overseas were more than the $10 million tax they owe here, then their tax would be something nominal, like 2%.

I'd eliminate most deductions, but leave in place tax incentives for jobs created in the United States, and establish tax penalties for jobs outsourced from the United States to foreign countries.
168  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: What will Obama's Scandals Be? on: May 17, 2013, 03:18:07 PM

Quote from: Gratch on May 17, 2013, 12:05:30 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on May 17, 2013, 02:01:30 AM

Even Peggy Noonan and Chris (thrill up my leg) Matthews have started criticizing O.   Lol what a disaster.

Wait, so you're telling me people don't have to be blindly partisan 100% of the time?  Tell me more about this phenomenon...

Also, is it surprising that Peggy Noonan, who was a speechwriter for Reagan, who took a leave from her journalistic position in 2004 to campaign for George W. Bush, who is a self-described and well known conservative, is taking shots at the President?
169  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: What will Obama's Scandals Be? on: May 15, 2013, 05:11:18 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on May 15, 2013, 04:45:44 PM

Do you all feel comfortable with the IRS overseeing the travesty know as Obamacare??

The IRS doesn't oversee Obamacare. All the IRS does in relation to Obamacare is include a line on its tax forms for individuals and business to either show that they are purchasing/providing health insurance coverage, instructions on paying the fine if not in compliance, and the same sort of collection services they engage in now.
170  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: What will Obama's Scandals Be? on: May 15, 2013, 05:08:49 PM
In the end, all of the confusion around Benghazi was the result of trying not to reveal the CIA operation that was interlinked with the ambassador's work there.

Obama's response to the IRS scandal has been proper so far. There will end up being several careers ended because of this. And there should be. I wonder, though, was Eco as energized by the 2005 IRS targeting of Greenpeace and liberal churches? This sort of thing is bullshit whenever it happens.

As for the AP, it seems unreasonable to me that the same Republican Senators crying "find out how the AP learned these government secrets!" are now crying "how dare you investigate the AP?!"
171  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: April 08, 2013, 07:40:49 PM
The sequester is like a lobster in a pot of water -- the lobster doesn't notice the water is getting warmer until it reaches a boil and kills it. Sequester will be the same way... a slow snowballing of small issues that develop into major problems for some of the most vulnerable folks in our society. We're a few weeks away from cycling furloughs of federal law enforcement officers, for example. That's not going to be good for anyone. And if the FAA does close thousands of small air traffic control towers in June, the eventual impact to our already frustrating air travel system will be immense.
172  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Pleased? on: April 07, 2013, 06:02:53 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on April 07, 2013, 04:13:42 AM

IRAs were supposed to be a way for the middle class to save for retirement. A loophole that lets billionaires use them as tax shelters needs closing.

Agreed.
173  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 13, 2013, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: raydude on March 13, 2013, 01:16:10 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on March 13, 2013, 11:32:24 AM

See though, the difference between us is that if things ever got really bad i would take a second job before milking the bloated entitlement system.  Hep on the other hand would be first in line for an Obama phone I'm certain.

Dude, there are folks who are amazingly embarrassed about having to ask for help, and they feel like such losers because they are in a tough spot and cannot get back on their feet on their own. Don't you dare make a mockery of those people just because you are all high and mighty in your ability to find work. I say this because Karma has a way of biting people in the ass.

This times 1,000.

Also, those who fall down on their luck, realize they can't get out of their situation on their own, swallow their pride and ask for help that eventually gets them back on their feet and being productive again *are* being responsible. Sometimes the most responsible thing you can say is "I can't do this on my own."
174  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 08, 2013, 10:22:44 PM
What else could he have done? Continued to try to meet them in the "middle" and drift ever further right?
175  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 06, 2013, 11:32:23 PM
My office's budget just got cut 8.5%. Probably won't have to lay anyone off (which would be bad for the economy, of course), but it will impact constituent services. There's just no way around that.
176  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: So How's Your Week Going to Be? 2/18 Edition on: February 18, 2013, 03:55:43 PM
Very busy. Flew with the entire DC staff back out to California this week. We have a series of meetings and press conferences, followed by an all day retreat at the end of the week, then an airplane ride back east.
177  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [USA] Who's off today? on: February 18, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
All Federal offices are closed, so I'm off.
178  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Star Trek 2, AKA Star Trek Into Darkness on: February 04, 2013, 05:39:59 AM
WarPig, I'm feeling the same drift.
179  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Gay Marriage 2013! on: February 04, 2013, 05:35:44 AM

Quote from: Arclight on February 03, 2013, 03:37:01 PM

You do realize some of you sound so hypocritical I'm amazed you can't see it yourselves. You can get all bent out of shape because of my beliefs. But If I so much as show any emotion negatively to your beliefs I'm put in a box with all other "christian crazies". I could care less if you think I'm following antiquated beliefs or not. I have as much right to say its not my belief that same sex should marry, as you do. Why then is my belief any less valid than yours?

You spit in the face of the gay people who post on this board by denigrating us as unworthy of marriage. It isn't about your beliefs. It's about the fact that you want me to live under your oppressive, gay-hating beliefs. I should not have to live by your morals. I am not less deserving of equal rights than you are.

Quote
To some of you, its time to let go of your hate of all things Christian.

I don't go to church every Sunday, but I am an Episcopalian, which last I checked made me a Christian. Detesting the fact that you want me to live under the precepts of your particular distorted view of Christianity is not "hating all things Christian."
180  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Gay Marriage 2013! on: February 03, 2013, 04:32:17 AM

Quote from: Arclight on February 01, 2013, 11:12:13 PM

I know in these times its not politically correct, but I don't indulge in politics. I say no to same sex marriages. What men and women do in the privacy of their homes, not hurting anyone, is their business entirely. But I just believe that the sanctity of Marriage is a Male-Female covenant. You may not like my answer, but you would like me less if I lied about my beliefs.

Absolutely nothing intended to offend Ritt. But you did ask.

Obama is saying what he thinks most people want him to say.


You have no more claim on the term "marriage" than I do. Why should I be forced to live under your beliefs? Me marrying someone of the same gender (hey Ritt, want to have dinner?) in no way changes your life.
181  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 18, 2013, 03:36:04 AM

Quote from: Alefroth on January 17, 2013, 05:28:15 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on January 17, 2013, 06:04:32 AM

Quote from: TiLT on January 14, 2013, 05:31:56 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 02:27:25 AM

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone.  He's being open and honest about his beliefs.  I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith.  I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

I realize that, and I'm not trying to insult him either, though I am being harsh on purpose. I don't see why he can attack the foundations of my world view (such as the Big Bang) if I can't attack his right back. Sometimes I get the impression that attacking science is okay, but attacking religion is unacceptable.

It's not just "the foundation of your worldview," either. Science is right -- not always in its conclusions, but in its process and approach. The framework of science is the only system we have in place for truly determining what is factual or not in this world.

If your religion is based upon ignoring or denying large bodies of rigorously-tested scientific data, then your religion is undeserving of respect.

Are the followers of that religion undeserving of respect?

Ale

Everyone as a person is worthy of respect. But not everyone's opinions on every issue is worthy of respect. Those who reject science also abdicate any right to having their opinions on matters scientific respected.
182  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 18, 2013, 03:29:12 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 17, 2013, 12:49:54 PM

The point is that we shouldn't make a sweeping statement that all religious people are backwards idiots.

Of course not all religious people are backwards or idiots. The vast majority of religious folks are neither. However, to reject evolution for creationism is a backwards and idiotic thing to do.
183  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 17, 2013, 06:08:43 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 06:40:09 PM

Quote
Again with the beliefs. Science is not faith! Everything science teaches you can be tested and proved by anyone who bothers to do so.

Do you know how many changes in theories there have been in science over the last 100 years regarding even the simplest of things, let alone the origin of the universe?  

The fact that science changes based on new data is it's STRENGTH. Science is open inquiry. Rejecting scientific data because of religious belief is to, quite literally, close one's mind to the truth because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.

We know for a fact that the world was not created as stated in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We know for a fact that the world is older by orders of magnitude than would be possible if the Bible was literally true. We may not know the exact details of all the right answers to the questions about how the world physically came to be or precisely how old the planet is, but we know for a fact that the answers one would draw from a literal reading of Genesis are flat wrong.
184  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 17, 2013, 06:04:32 AM

Quote from: TiLT on January 14, 2013, 05:31:56 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 02:27:25 AM

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone.  He's being open and honest about his beliefs.  I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith.  I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

I realize that, and I'm not trying to insult him either, though I am being harsh on purpose. I don't see why he can attack the foundations of my world view (such as the Big Bang) if I can't attack his right back. Sometimes I get the impression that attacking science is okay, but attacking religion is unacceptable.

It's not just "the foundation of your worldview," either. Science is right -- not always in its conclusions, but in its process and approach. The framework of science is the only system we have in place for truly determining what is factual or not in this world.

If your religion is based upon ignoring or denying large bodies of rigorously-tested scientific data, then your religion is undeserving of respect.
185  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 20, 2012, 02:45:05 PM

Quote from: hepcat on December 02, 2012, 08:35:14 PM

So am I to assume that you back ATB's belief that a Mormon president would lead to the apocalypse?    Tongue

But on a more serious note.

Quote from: Fireball1244 on December 02, 2012, 06:27:20 PM

That's the crux of the issue: traditional Christians and Mormons mean very, very different things when they say that Jesus is the Son of God. The traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the Mormon view of the Trinity are irreconcilable. From a theological point of view, this is the most important belief in Christianity. It forms the core of the historic Creeds (which themselves predate the established canon of the Bible)..

If you view Christians with that narrow a definition then you've effectively stated that the following groups are also not allowed to call themselves Christians:

Unitarianism
Binitarianism
Christian Science
Jehovah's Witnesses

You're ignoring the first sentence from my first post: "I want to preface by saying that no one gets to tell anyone else what they can consider themselves, in terms of religion. Catholics and Methodists, etc, are within their rights to say "Mormonism is not Christianity," and members of the LDS are equally in the right to say "Mormonism is Christianity.""
186  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Star Trek 2, AKA Star Trek Into Darkness on: December 06, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
That trailer screams "Gary Mitchell is the villain" to me.
187  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Ender's Game on: December 06, 2012, 07:24:21 PM
I would be so excited about this movie if Orson Scott Card hadn't turned into a raging hateful homophobe in the last decade. Or perhaps he always was, but now he feels more free to rant about it.
188  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Walking Dead moonwalk onto AMC for Season 3 on: December 05, 2012, 10:23:25 PM
This season has been great. So much better than most of last season. The cliffhanger was very well handled.

And I think Chris Hardwick is cute.
189  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: xkcd is awesome on: December 04, 2012, 11:07:39 PM
I'm so glad she's doing better! When he did the huge, scrolling "how amazing is this world" comic, the dialogue and the bittersweetness of it made me worry that she had died.
190  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [Movie]The Amazing Spider-Man 2 on: December 04, 2012, 10:42:08 PM
I kinda hope they title the sequel "The Spectacular Spider-Man".
191  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 02, 2012, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 26, 2012, 03:09:32 PM

At the end of the day, Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God.

That's the crux of the issue: traditional Christians and Mormons mean very, very different things when they say that Jesus is the Son of God. The traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the Mormon view of the Trinity are irreconcilable. From a theological point of view, this is the most important belief in Christianity. It forms the core of the historic Creeds (which themselves predate the established canon of the Bible)..

Quote
They believe he was resurrected by God after getting offed for our sins.

That's a touchy point. Traditional Christian belief is that Jesus, who himself is God, raised himself from the dead through his own divine power. The statement that "God rose Jesus from death" is, from a traditional Trinitarian perspective, a statement reflecting Jesus's divinity as God the Son.

Quote
They use the Bible in their services...as well as additional text they believe in (are you going to tell me that the Bible HASN'T had chapters added by your definition of Christians over the course of time?).

The canon of the Bible varied wildly until the late 300s, after the Nicene Creed was formalized. The early Church, and today's Catholic and Orthodox churches, built their beliefs on the foundation of the Creeds, not the Bible.

In the Western Church, the Synod of Hippo is credited as establishing a finalized canon of only those books in harmony with the Nicene Creed, while a similar process occurred in the Eastern Church around the same time, producing an identical New Testament canon, and slightly different Old Testament canons. Those canons and their respective books have come down from that point fundamentally unchanged. During the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant Churches removed certain books from the Old Testament, and changed the order of the books of the Old Testament, but did not alter the New Testament.  

As to the content of individual books, setting aside translation disagreements, extant evidence shows that the content has remained the same since the time of the official canon being set forth. Some books, particularly the Gospel of Mark, show differences in text in the 100s and 200s, and modern Bibles tend to clearly note the section of Mark that is not found in the earliest extant copies.
192  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 02, 2012, 06:05:04 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on November 26, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Mormonism is just yet another branch (or sub-branch) of Christianity, like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Pentacostal or Protestant.

I want to preface by saying that no one gets to tell anyone else what they can consider themselves, in terms of religion. Catholics and Methodists, etc, are within their rights to say "Mormonism is not Christianity," and members of the LDS are equally in the right to say "Mormonism is Christianity."

However, there seems to be a lot of handwaving in this thread about *why* all Christian churches that hold traditional theological points of view hold the opinion that the LDS is something separate from Christianity. There are fundamental theological differences that cannot be bridged between the two groups.

If traditional Christianity is right about these fundamental things, then the Latter Day Saints are inescapably, fundamentally wrong about certain key issues. Likewise, if the Latter Day Saints are right about these fundamental things, then the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, etc, are all themselves inescapably, fundamentally wrong about certain key issues.

Everyone has a right to consider themselves a Christian, no matter what he or she believes. Anyone can define their belief of what Christianity is in any way they like. That doesn't change the scale of the differences at play, or that these differences are regarding the key aspects of what it means to be a Christian.
193  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 25, 2012, 10:49:22 PM
Apple Maps has been fine for me. It got me to and from locations in Los Angeles and Palm Springs this weekend. It knows the roads and locations in Riverside pretty well.

So obviously the dataset they're building on top of is pretty good for this region. It'll get better everywhere as more people use the maps. With 100 million devices running iOS 6 already, they should get better rather rapidly, if not quickly.

Glad I don't live in Europe.
194  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 27, 2012, 08:20:10 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on August 24, 2012, 10:54:52 PM

Quote from: Calavera on August 24, 2012, 09:28:48 PM

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.


The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress.

That's not true. DADT was repealed by Congress in December 2010. It was a law, and had to be repealed by Congress.
195  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Threatens To Disenfranchise Nearly 10 Percent Of State on: August 16, 2012, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: CeeKay on July 06, 2012, 01:29:33 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1652469.html

Quote
Pennsylvanians will be required to show government-issued photo identification in order to cast votes in November, thanks to a GOP-supported voter ID law signed by Gov. Tom Corbett (R) earlier this year. While supporters argued that it was a simple measure meant to combat voter fraud, figures released this week show that the law may affect more than 750,000 Pennsylvanians who don't currently possess identification cards issued by the state Department of Transportation Department.

According to the report, which compared voter registration rolls with transportation department ID databases, more than 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania have no driver's license -- a primary form of identification. That's 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voters, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. In Philadelphia, the state's biggest city, that number balloons to 18 percent of the city's total voting population -- around 186,830 registered voters, according to the newspaper.

The Corbett administration maintained earlier that 99 percent of Pennsylvania voters already had proper identification, and therefore wouldn't need to take additional steps to cast their ballots. The voter ID law does allow for the use of other forms of identification, including U.S. passports, student ID cards with expiration dates and military ID. Because of that, state officials have shown little concern over the latest numbers.

“This thorough comparison of databases confirms that most Pennsylvanians have acceptable photo ID for voting this November,” Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele said in a news release. “This comparison takes into account only voters with PennDot IDs, and does not include voters who may have any of the other various acceptable forms of ID.”

it's hard to believe that that there are so many people there without any form of proper ID.  do those people just live totally off the grid?  it seems to do anything, like bank or have a proper job you'd have to have at least a State ID.

This is a common misconception. The working poor live in a cash society that involves little to no banking. They don't travel by airplane. They use other items for their limited ID needs -- in most cases, a utility bill will work. When you pay rent week to week, cash your paychecks at stores that exist specifically for that, don't save, don't travel and live effectively hand to mouth, you have no need for an ID.

Also, many, many elderly people don't have a valid ID because they don't drive or travel often, and most places accept expired IDs when dealing with the elderly.

Finally, many young people would also be prevented from voting because the addresses on your ID and your voter registration must match perfectly -- so young people, and poor people, who move repeatedly during the year would have to be extremely vigilant about updating all their registrations, and often updating your voters registration address requires trips to inconveniently located government offices during "normal" working hours.

These laws are a terrible regression of the right of people to vote. They are presented as an attempt to "solve" a problem that simply isn't an issue in American elections — fraudulent voting by way of voter impersonation. There *is* voter fraud in America, but these laws won't solve it, as most fraudulent ballots are submitted through the mail.

Of course, it just so happens that the hardship from this new law will fall almost entirely on people likely to support one political party. Surely a coincidence.
196  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 11, 2012, 11:28:11 PM
Ryan himself will not cost Romney votes, but he makes it harder for Romney to avoid problematic topics like the recent efforts of Republicans to dismantle medicare.

The people for whom this is a *disaster* are Republican Congressional candidates in marginal districts. They had been trying like mad to not talk about Medicare. Guess what just became topic number two in the election?
197  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 11, 2012, 07:41:26 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 11, 2012, 06:14:10 PM

I can't believe what I'm reading in this forum:   Liberals hating the Ryan pick.   I'm SHOCKED I tell you.   SHOCKED.

My campaign raised a lot of money today off this pick. I was really afraid that Romney would make a sensible pick of someone clearly qualified but inoffensive: a Portman, Daniels of Pawlenty. This made my day.

This will no doubt consolidate Romney's base and give him a nice bump going into the Convention. But in terms of election narrative, Romney can't avoid a clear debate between "cut taxes for the rich and slash social spending" versus "raise taxes on the rich and cut spending up and down the budget" approaches to balance the budget. That's not a policy fight where a majority of Americans are on his side.
198  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Down to 3? on: August 08, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Those three make sense. None of them is a game changer, though. My guess is Portman, as Romney is falling behind in Ohio, and if it starts to solidify away from him the way Pennsylvania seems to have, he really doesn't have a path to 270 electoral votes.
199  Gaming / Portable Gaming & Apps / Re: [iOS] Official Apple Podcast App (FINALLY!!) on: August 06, 2012, 07:31:10 PM
The new app does not require downloading podcasts from iTunes. It can automatically download episodes when connected via cellular or wi-fi, depending on the size of the file in question.
200  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Mars rover Curiosity lands tonight on: August 06, 2012, 01:23:40 AM
It's such a complicated landing. I hope it all works out okay. Seven minutes of terror indeed!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.054s, 1q)