Election fraud is claimed to be rare because there is no way to quantify it if you can't verify the identity of the voter. I could vote for my whole family and no one would know. All my friends who are lazy and I can't get to go to mid-term elections I might as well vote for them too. All I need is a passable signature and their home address (which is public record). Now when people are polled, do they admit to committing a crime? Probably rarely...

I believe we need to make election processes simple, efficient, sensible, and communicated well in advance of the election. In other words, NOT what the republicans are proposing... They should be implementing these laws for the NEXT election cycle at a minimum, and make it well known to the population well in advance of any candidates even being proposed. You shouldn't campaign on election laws at all.

As for making it harder for people to vote. Maybe it'll be called racist to say this, but people who live in the United States of America in 2014 without a form of photo ID are EXACTLY the people who shouldn't be voting. There are plenty of other people WITH photo ID who also shouldn't be voting, but I will not shed one tear for someone who can't vote because they can't come up with proof of their identification.

Of course, the alternative that I would be happy with is the simple ink on the hand that 3rd world countries do that is more effective in preventing voter fraud than what we have now...

While I agree with the AC that the majority of regions lean republican, the reality is that this problem is a result of gerrymandering. I believe in addition to restoring the states appointing senators, the house should move to an MMP election system to more accurately represent the political beliefs of the people. More people might lean democrat than republican at this point, but the reality is that most people are against the two party system (but despite that won't vote that way under the current system).

I agree, claims of voter suppression and racism are bullshit. Is it suppression for all the other things that require ID in the modern world? I hope you never have to fly, buy alcohol, medicine, cash a check, or do anything else either.

As far as us being a democracy, our founding fathers had a healthy fear of it. The direct election of senators for sure messed up the system of government. If we want only representatives elected by the people, just drop the senate altogether. The house already represents the will of the people. The senate was supposed to represent the states, and now it doesn't... It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?

Hope you don't drive through a national forest with a dash cam...

What happened to "Bazinga"?

Also your NFPA diamonds in the lab are the wrong direction.

But is CO2 pollution? Plants sure love that stuff and you exhale it all the time... If CO2 is pollution, than what isn't?

I do thinking adding energy changes the system. I however don't believe that the increase in temperature on the planet will cause the doom that AGW proponents are claiming. I don't doubt the temperature trend, I doubt the effects that they predict based on the temperature.

Look to history for evidence for a catastrophe on a warm planet. The warmest periods on the planet are the ones where life was most prolific.

Or you might be the dumb fucker... Half a dozen degrees in a century is absurd. And the fact that extinctions are occurring is not evidence for a catastrophe, as like climate changing, extinctions are a natural part of this planet. The IPCC is not interested in science, they are interested in the fearmongering that you have bought in to.

I'm not claiming to be more clever that anyone else, I'm pointing out that you aren't interested in science, you are interested in politics.

So 1) Artificial scarcity of carbon based fuel
2) Redistribution of wealth
3) Let the market deal with the extra government regulations

Yes extremely disturbing that people can only be in one of three political categories... And disturbing that it looks so smooth and regular that either they had a ridiculously large sample size or they made up the data.

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

It'll probably pay for itself and maybe if the police departments sold their armored vehicles and camo uniforms they'd be able to afford the initial capital.

Seriously. It's bad enough with an extension to block auto playing videos, but on a computer where the videos auto play you could hook up a hydroelectric generator to all that falling water and sell the power to raise money for charity.

Well I'll call you in 100 years and we'll see who was right...