chuck schick

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense. I just lean more toward the differences from state-to-state as a good thing. People can much more easily make changes to things they don't like, or even just move to another state (if things get really bad!). It's pretty tough to make meaningful changes at a federal level and it is a lot less practical to actually leave the U.S. entirely. You also see states competing among each other for citizens and businesses, and often copy ideas or policies that are popular and effective. Didn't there used to be some rumblings about Northern California wanting to split into a separate state from Southern California?But I agree that it would be trickier as the states get bigger. I don't think it would really change the dynamic between the federal,state and local governments though...they should all have their defined roles.

See I think your last sentence is where the misunderstandings are. You are absolutely right about wasteful spending related to our military. But at least the federal government is SUPPOSED to be spending money on national defense in the first place. Most of these other initiatives were meant to be left to state and local governments. This is where most conservatives lose their minds -- we don't see the role of our federal government as one to be getting involved in things like the Dept of Energy, Education, etc, etc. I think the more we move every little decision away from our lower levels of government, the further we get from how our system was set up to work best.

Technology that replaces humans is now considered greed? If this is a common perception than we are all screwed. It's reality and in almost all cases, a good thing. Our expertise in productivity is one of the biggest factors in our economic strength compared to other countries. These kinds of advantages are supposed to (and historically have led to) freeing up manpower to become even MORE productive. i understand the allure of things like minimum wages and certain social entitlements. But I heard someone once say "The more you subsidize an activity, the more of that activity you're going to get". A McD's worker making $15 an hour is just going to keep working that job making his $15 an hour; He's not going to be compelled to go do something else, and in the progress actually discover something wonderful and fulfilling. Don't underestimate the power of motivation, our country's history is filled with millions of such stories. Im not going to go into it, but I think we see the same effects when we take a look at the welfare system we've created. Good intentions, terrible results.

I think Dominator was looking for a little insight into what the original poster found appealing about Trump. Which I kind of wanted to hear too. Or we could just call him a loonie and learn absolutely nothing, which I guess works too.

What does that even mean? Last I checked, a person that hires someone else has to learn a specific skill, take the enormous financial risk of starting a business to sell that skill at a price people will pay, and have enough left over to pay himself, his expenses and everyone else in his employ. I know dentists, landscapers, surf shop owners, and contractors that would sum up their businesses in about this same way. " Demand "kind of gets the ball rolling, but the rest comes from hard work and good business sense.

I would add an important few words to your comment: that "they hire because demand for their product or service exceeds their ability to supply AND CONTINUE TO BE OR BECOME MORE PROFITABLE". I think that profitability is what has been severely damaged by our economic system over recent years, and not a lack of demand.

My only point is that the solutions we've chosen to solve our economic problems seem to often just cause more problems. The situation you personally described - highly educated and hard-working, but no jobs to match abilities- is experienced by a lot of people unfortunately. In my mind, I see the problem being largely because there aren't enough people/businesses competing for your expertise. So wouldn't the solution be to do whatever we can to support these competing job-creators? But instead all I'm hearing these days are things that would logically REDUCE this pool-- higher minimum wages, mandatory health care coverage, etc. Things that discourage businesses from starting or continuing. Small and mid-size businesses can really compete with larger firms due to advantages like lower overhead and more intimate knowledge of a local area. This competition would lead to more choices for consumers and better wages for workers. But those advantages have been pretty well wiped out by the large corporations' ability to handle all the red tape and regulations so much more efficiently and cheaply.

I read the article, and came away with the opinion that Obamacare was going to cost each franchise $10,000+ per year , or possibly be forced to reduce headcount to avoid the mandate. This is for a franchise store, not some monster corporation just to clarify. Profit margins are very thin even before that extra $10,000 is sucked out. Now add all the existing taxes, regulations, and maybe even your proposed hike to the minimum wage for this type of job. I don't think it takes an MBA to understand why small businesses and the entrepreneurial spirit is getting squashed. How can it come as any surprise that what we get left with are extremely lean-running corporations that can use their advantages to survive this kind of business environment? What sole proprietor businessman would even want to? And voila, we are all left with slim pickings for good-paying jobs and it all gets blamed on the evil corporations or the lack of government intervention. Unreal.

You can't call something a right if it has to be taken from one person and given to another. Maybe free healthcare is a good idea. But if money has to be forcibly taken from others to do it, then it isn't a right. I think those on the Right would be much more willing to consider certain social programs if those on the Left would stop wrongly using terms like these.

Not to get off on a tangent, but you ought to try Uber out just for the hell of it. When you set up your account you might even get a freebie. I tried it last year when I had my car in the shop and just needed a ride back home. I've done it about 6 times since and it's pretty cool. The drivers are usually people who work funny hours and have time to make extra money, without any commitments required by a normal job. They get to keep 80% of the fee (according to one of the drivers anyway). The cars are all newer and clean (unlike most cabs I've been in), and the drivers are friendly and polite. Most important, it is typically much cheaper and timely than a taxi.

Fair and reasonable thought process. But let me try to challenge you a little here... In an open economy businesses have to compete on a number of fronts: on price and quality of products to gain and keep customers; on wages and benefits to recruit and keep talented employees. I agree that reasonable regulations are necessary to protect the environment and a few other related issues. But a government agency really only has to worry about justifying its existence. Profitability and working to mutually satisfy its customers and business partners is not necessary because that's not what "keeps them in business". So the natural tendency is to add more and more layers, and to intervene and regulate just for the sake of it. (Job security). I was reading about Uber in Time magazine this morning. A great idea for sure, but made even greater because it busts through so many regulations that have entrenched the way people have traditionally gotten rides from a vendor.

If you're going to blast people for favoring less regulation, you've got to at least acknowledge the pitfalls on the other side too. Big central government, over-regulation, etc has caused countless problems through corruption, over-reach, and unintended consequences of the regulations. You bring up the financial crisis on a few occasions--- if I remember right, a contributing factor was the federal government's incentivization of sub-prime lending. Sounded good in theory, not so good when it gets twisted and misused by lenders and buyers. I think it's a fair argument that the (over?) regulation/involvement of the government is to blame at least indirectly for quite a few problems we've run into.

Racism and guns are easy targets to blame for everybody's problems. And just like most things that are too easy, we know it's not the right answer. 99.9% of the people in this country are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. They could absolutely care less about racism or anything that is associated with it. That goes for small business owners, cops, janitors, whoever. If you think otherwise, you're just projecting your own pet priorities onto everybody else. You could put a gun in the hands of 99.9% of the people in this country and they wouldn't even consider doing something illegal or violent towards an innocent person. The other.1% is going to figure out a way to do whatever twisted thing it is they are committed to doing. We have 300 million guns in this country already. What law is going to make a dent in that? Sorry, if you're banging these drums you are never going to be part of a meaningful solution. You've fallen into the political trap of endlessly chasing your own tail.

I think you just stumbled onto a great name for a Single-A baseball team. The San Antonio Anchor Babies has a nice ring to it, and has relevance to the area. Kind of like the Springfield Isotopes.

Haha! That's actually pretty good... And I hate to say it, but there are probably a few out there trying to get their hands on some mustard gas and RPGs as we speak! But I don't think that's where the realistic argument is. Practicality has to play a role here; no one is banging the drum for tanks or land mines since that would be very impractical. But when the debate starts to turn to possibly banning a certain type of gun or put other limitations in place, people get worried. We are trusting a government to make definitions on terms like "assault weapons" and trust they won't overstep its bounds-- which is a big leap of faith for many people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would compare it to pro-choice advocates. They get real defensive any time a politician tries to insert a limitation into the law - things like "partial birth", etc. Even though some of it might not be a terrible idea, they just don't want to start down the slippery slope, which is probably smart.

The more I read and think about it, the more I disagree with this opinion (about automatic weapons). The way I read the 2nd Amendment, the concern was to allow an individual to protect himself from harm--- including individuals, foreign invaders, or even a domestic government agency. As crazy as that may sound, history and what's going on around the world today prove otherwise. If you outlaw an automatic weapon, for example, you immediately become an easy victim against an attacker who has one. For people who take these threats seriously and take responsibility for their own protection (as opposed to relying on the police, etc), I think these weapons need to be made available to them.

Again, there are plenty of ways to kill people in a hurry. I don't see any realistic gun law that would have stopped any of these tragedies (Sandy Hook, etc.) from happening. If you outlaw gun type X, these guys will just go on to the next option. I refuse to believe that anything other than motive and resolve separates why we see these kinds of things happening in one place vs. another. Which is unfortunately a lot worse than blaming it on an inanimate object.

I'm just not seeing the usual drop-down blame game working on this one. But who knows... * Islamist terrorist who hates America? This guy has Jordanian and Kuwaiti roots... those countries and their citizens should absolutely love the relationship they've had with the U.S. in recent history. * feels disenfranchised as a low income, fatherless, poorly educated minority? He was brought up in the suburbs and graduated college as an electrical engineer. Seemed to be well-adjusted and liked by his peers. * our gun laws made this happen? We haven't seen how he got hold of his gun (*most of the time they are acquired illegally, making any demand for new laws moot), but does anyone honestly think a guy hell-bent on this kind of thing allow lack of access to a gun slow him down? Where was the uproar to the pressure pot industry after the Boston Marathon? I actually found it more telling that this guy chose a "gun free zone" to pull this off. Seems like these guys gravitate to areas where they know they have a good chance of being the only ones armed: schools, churches, movie theatre, etc.

Saw the Eagles last night in Charlottesville. I can't imagine a better performance and sound, considering the mileage on those guys. They looked great too- granted I was in the nosebleeds. Glenn Frey seems like a pretty cool dude. I would highly recommend checking them out, as they are swing through Buffalo this weekend I think.

I think that's just human nature. If you don't have food and shelter, you focus all your energy on getting it. Once you do, you move on to "what's next, or what's missing?" It's why people who win the lottery often end up just as unhappy with the money as they were without it. http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Oh no doubt, this is all entertainment; advertisers and promoters are giving people in attendance what they want. Every school function I've been to for my 3 teenage kids (non-sporting as well) starts with the Pledge of Allegiance. Go to a Country-Western concert (do they still call it Country-Western?) and you will see all kinds of flag-waving on the video screens, at least here in Va Beach.

Point taken. But I would just add that, like most things in entertainment, certain thing just work/don't work. The national anthem or ceremony at a sporting event works because it gives everyone a chance to catch their breath, do something in unison, and then get fired up for the competition to follow. A big time concert uses opening bands to serve a similar purpose.

I think that the national anthem, and cheering for the military, are rare examples of a common bond a large audience of people can share. Kind of like rooting for a home town hockey team (made up almost entirely of players and coaches from places nowhere near that home town.... Kind of weird!)

I have been thinking about that as well. A state makes for a great laboratory, where different ideas can be tried out. The rest of the country can sit back and see if it was a good or bad idea, including unintended consequences. Competition between the states (means and levels of taxation, gambling, marijuana laws, etc) often leads to greater efficiency and creativity. Mistakes made on a smaller scale aren't as crippling, either. So while I am in favor of the gay marriage decision, I think it would have been much better if we could have made it ourselves.

Yeah, the toothpaste is out of the tube on this. There's no way to go back and re-wire how people react to this symbol/flag. With all the race-related problems that are so hard to solve, this just seems like a no -brainer. What is the point of having this on government property?