Andrewwhyte

At least he makes it clear that the Gman doesn't fix the game for him.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers but according to http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/774/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/ UK's national debt is much lower than Italy's or Greece's. As the page suggests Japan's unreasonably low risk premiums are due to the national savings rate.

They have that; it's called open.

Happens all the time in US. Usually it is best if it is not the pilot, but it can be done safely if done properly.

Printing money is in fact a way to solve debt problems. I would contend that it will largely be at the expense of the small freeholders of wealth. The large institutional wealth holders tend to do better than the average when it comes to the turbulent economic times that inevitably follow that sort of behavior, the net debtors either go bankrupt when their payments escalate with the nominal interest rate or actually benefit from the real value of the debt falling. What printing money will not do is solve a structural deficit problem. This is because the deficit exists in the real economy as well as the financial one. Printing money can soften this year's financial deficit, but not the real one; we are consuming more than we create or borrow. To make a simple analogy, printing money will not put more wheat in the field.

I couldn't help but notice he had a cutaway handle in one hand but no reserve handle in the other.

Last week the kicker was attempting a very long 'edge of his range' kick. Maybe bad luck he made the first one and not the second, maybe he didn't have the leg strength to do it twice in a row so close together. Last night he didn't miss, his blockers did.

In Canada prisoners are allowed to vote if they are scheduled to be eligible for parole during the mandate of the government being elected. The idea being that they cannot be denied the vote if they may spend any time in the society during the mandate. I disagree with that and would prefer it that someone should be finished their sentence (including probation) before having their franchise reinstated. This would mean that murderers would never get it back as the sentence for murder in Canada is life with parole eligibility determined by the degree of the murder. I see no problem with the courts removing your voting rights at the same rate they removed your liberty. Sadly the Supreme court of Canada did not ask my opinion before issuing their judgement.

tough crowd tonight.

Oh no, there are many choices. You could replace universal suffrage with a means test. Or you could eliminate the middleman by replacing the House of Representatives with the Forbes List. What is your favoured replacement for democracy. Who should make the decisions if not the citizens?

Well, there would have to be a majority of voters in enough states to change the constitution to allow a foreigner to run, but yes, if that is what the American people want then they should get it. Didn't you guys fight a revolution over that concept? If you are not in favour of democracy what do you suggest? Perhaps the US should return to being under the protection of Her Majesty, the Defender of the Faith.

You should also make friends with Alberta Skydivers. They jump fairly regularly during the winter. There were about 15 of them today but it got winded out. Glad I didn't drive down.

If the voters want to vote for the guy with a record why shouldn't they be allowed to? To disqualify people from running denies a choice for the rest of the voters, no?

With all due respect, I've been hosed by very experienced turbine pilots. Not all the time, but often enough to watch out for myself and adjust my exit accordingly if necessary. Really? An air traffic controller who doesn't have an abiding faith in the wisdom and competence of pilots. How unusual.

Yes. Otherwise it is possible to permanently remove political opponents by serving up a trumped up charge. They do it in Pakistan quite regularly. BTW In Britain Bobby Sands was elected while serving time for being a terrorist. He never took his seat as he was on a hunger strike at the time and died shortly after the election. The point is the people of that riding sent a very powerful message to Westminster.

Yes. Which brings us back to the original issue. He is not a criminal. He was judged insane. He is now (perhaps in the process of) being judged no longer insane. Should he enjoy the franchise. I would say yes BUT the question at hand is: should he have enjoyed the franchise whilst judged insane? I think not. Rocket thinks so. It is not an easy question.

Perfect. Keep Greece, Italy and Spain and kick the UK out. Might as well get rid of France, Germany and Denmark while you are at it.

In Hinckley's case, since he is 'cured', he should now graduate to the penitentiary! Chuck Of course not. He was judged not guilty.

Does the legal concept of 'temporary insanity' not exist? If it does does that not imply that all insanity at least has the capacity to be ephemeral?

Yes, let's stick to competence. The original issue is whether the incompetent due to insanity should be allowed to vote. If Hinkley is now competent, then he is no longer insane. The question still remains for those who are currently insane. BTW Hinkley is still legally insane of course. While the advice of the medical community is and should be the deciding factor, they are still merely advisors to the court. It was the court who deemed him insane and only the court can legally deem him sane.

Hmm, well I was unaware that his doctors have proclaimed him competent. My argument however was attempting to use him as an example of someone for whom the doctors insist is not competent. Should that person who's actions have proven to be severely detrimental to those around them, but who are deemed to not be responsible, should that individual be allowed within the decision making community?

It is, I would contend, a matter of degree. Someone who is hospitalised from an insulin shock or diabetic coma incident is not a ward of the state. John Hinkley Jr. on the other hand is. I would remind you that he is not a convicted criminal. Should he have the vote?

Do not confuse the message with the messenger. While we are all aware that you do not agree with his political stances (BTW I thought the actual message in the speech was standard centre left fare, nothing noteworthy whatsoever) to blithely claim, 'he's so dumb a lamp post could beat him' is the sort of myopic vision that led to, or at least contributed to, his election in the first place.

Lucky it sounds like you need two accounts. One, under a screen name, that has your friends, and one under your own name that has your professional contacts (might be a good place for your mom as well). Whenever you are tagged in a photo you can decide which name it goes under. For example if you are naked smoking that bong and it is tagged under your professional name you can un-tag it while in your pro name account. If you do that no one can ever tag it with that name again, FB will not allow it as you have said it is not you. If you want you can then tag it with your screen name so your party friends can see it. Or not. Remember this, if you you untag a photo of yourself it will be untagged forever; no one else can re-tag it. The alternative is to delete the real name you and never let any professional associates on your screen name account. I know friends who simply tell their associates, "Sorry but I prefer to keep facebook away from my professional life." I have one friend who recently lamented that he has one FB friend from work because she is a former jumper. I pointed out that since she is a swinger I think she is pretty careful about what she lets on and he probably doesn't have to worry too much.

No, but it does impair your ability to make rational decisions, by definition. If that has been established to the point that you are not able to make your own personal decisions (hence the 'care of the state') perhaps you should not be entrusted to make decisions for the group.