Hulu plus is good for being a replacement DVR for network TV. Plus reruns. That's about it.

Amazon Prime, though, is your key to cutting the cable. You see, most of what's on any channel is crap. But if there's one or two shows keeping you on cable (such as Mad Men), then you can buy the current season on Amazon and get the stream the day after it airs for the first time on AMC. This lets you be current on those one or two shows keeping you on the cable. Plus, actually streaming recent stuff.

It's worth noting a few things about the Yucca Mountain project that are not apparent from your post:

-The Department of Energy first started investigating Yucca Mountain in 1978, under Jimmy Carter (D).

-The site was supposed to begin accepting nuclear waste for storage in 1998 under Ronald Reagan (R)

-The county in which the storage facility lies backs the site; it's other Nevadans who do not

-The site was only shut down when a Nevadan had control of the Senate by supermajority, and his party held the House and the Presidency. Since that time, any bill which could force the President into a difficult decision has been blocked in the Senate. Considering that the Department of Energy is a Presidental Cabinet department, the horsetrade is obvious, and the terrific national cost is both clear and disregarded.

The project was consistent and and non-partisan, having crossed through periods of control by either party. (Carter D, Reagan R, Bush R, Clinton D, Bush R) Until after the 2008 elections, that is.

The problem isn't union or not.

The acutal problem is that public employees refuse to see that their money comes from the public.

You see, out in the real world, when the company you run or work for does poorly, you expect it to impact your income. It's obvious logic - the company makes less money, you make less money.

But when the public average income goes down, do government employees predict a pay or benefit cut? Of course not! The 3% COLA plus raise must step on!

Not to mention the under-the-table abuses. Having lived through the last several years in Wisconsin, I can tell you that the Union-owned company providing healthcare (by Union demand in the contract, of course) costs significantly more than identical plans from any other source.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/102748594.html
So this ends up being not only way better health benefits than private employees not in a C-office can find, but there's even a roughly 30% boost that goes straight to Union coffers. Nice.

Turns out when you run the campaign (via free labor, shared space and big contributions) of the person on the other side of the bargaining table, the "bargaining" gets pretty easy for your side. Especially absent any downside to them for giving you the farm. (profit motive is a bitch anyway)

Furthermore, I hear government employees of all stripes complain that they'd make more in the private sector, but don't. But then you ask them to prove it. Turns out teachers working for government earn much more than private. Cops have it all over security guards too. Janitors? Don't get me started. Clerks? Income and benefits differents would be laughably huge if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for them.

But you never hear about it until the sad sacks finish their protracted whining jag about how horrible they have it and you show them how Monster.com works. Then they get real quiet.

Turns out the way unions keep their hand in your paycheck is by convincing you that you have it unjustifiably bad. Keep you angry, keep you stupid, keep you under control - that's the Union Way.

More info: The Devil at my Doorstep by David Bego.

Back in/before the 70s, The Pill could only be taken for a few years - the dosage was considered too strong. So, after a few years of marriage, kids started showing up.

And for thousands of years of recorded history before that, there was no "choice". You had kids until you couldn't.

We represent the first generation of humanity that can cheaply, easily, truly choose when/how many in regards to children. So it should be absolutely obvious we would wait to be more financially ready. It has very little to do with greed, and I find it more than a little little ironic that members of America's most selfish generation (boomers) should point such blame at anyone else.

I agree with the essential sentiment of the other posts commenting on mine, but this nonsense - despite being brought up by a Coward - bears addressing.

You assume much to say that "red states" would have to raise taxes to get anywhere.

-You assume the national welfare state would be maintained
-You assume the "services" would stay the same.
-You assume the seceding states would continue to sell food to the overdeveloped coasts at current subsidized prices
-You assume the seceding states would continue to sell energy and raw materials to the overdeveloped coasts at current prices
-You assume the states would not enact the sort of business-friendly enviornment that would draw most business out of the old USA, creating a massive new tax base that can be touched only lightly to result in massive revenue
-You assume that the social leeches would stay there when the host goes dry and not take advantage of their citizenship to reconnect to the host

I could go on. But, as with most (what was your term?) degenerate blue-state fools, you assume what is must be, and cannot be reversed.

Signing a secession petition is a complete cop-out.

You are right that the best reasons to exit the USA have nothing to do with the individual candidates and everything to do with the nature of Federal abuse of power.

There are 2 courses which might be effective:

1. You begin to actively work/campaign for the education of the people and the election of representatives who will advance your view of the correct limits of Federal power. Keep in mind that many candidates will be imperfect but still worthwhile; we did not get to where we are in 1 step, and we will not return from it in 1 step either. Baby steps must be acceptable, especially early on. This is the work of generations, as it took generations to get to where we are. You will need to be patient and diligent - and both qualities are rare in humans. In time, the USA will begin to resemble the ideas we suppose to claim, but the path will be long, difficult, and messy, as people unlearn their domestication and become, once again, wild and free.

2. Carve out a piece of property - preferably on a national border or ocean. Define a government for yourself and those with you, and defend it with such skills and weapons as you have. This will be the all-consuming work of a lifetime, quite possibly in a shack in the woods in Montana.

A petition to Obama to "Let My People Go" is the act of a crybaby, because it puts the work of implementing either option to other people who have no interest in seeing it through. Note that every state - yes, even Texas - which has sufficient signers has seen their Governor come forward and denounce the notion. The real task of secession and new independence is immense, and no person in power who you might Petition wishes to pursue it. They have far too much investment in the way things are.

Therefore, you will do it yourself or you will not see it.

-------
As a point of deeper personal editorial, if you agree with the above and see sense in it, you had no reason to vote for anyone but Romney for president. He was far from perfect, but he had a legitimate shot and would begin walking back some of the worst excesses. Ron Paul has some nice ideas, for example, but one does not go directly from starvation to feast; indeed, attempting to do so would bring the worst strawmen of the opposition to life. Romney was not the man to take us back to the way things should be, but he could have been the man to start. Barack Obama is certainly headed for more federal power, not less. This is plain. Those who cannot hold their nose, in politics, are doomed to suffocate.

I wish it had been Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold. Littleton, CO would be better for it.

In school, I was bullied too. Here's the kicker - my dad was a cop, gunsmith, and holder of a Federal Firearms License. Yes, that means he sold guns.

My home had guns stacked like cordwood. I'm not exaggerating. I had my first rifle at age 11 and became very proficient - most of the guys on the force considered my dad the marksman of the group. Probably came from his stint in the military, but whatever. I think you get the picture. I knew my way around most guns, could hit what I wanted to, and had easy access to weapons of all sorts.

Here's the thing. I never took the bully's shit. They called me a name, I embarrassed them. They put a tack on my chair, I stabbed them in the kneecap with my automatic pencil. By the time I got to the back half of high school, I had no problems with people whatsoever.

You see, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold just sat there and took it. They tried to find an outlet for their rage - video games, violent movies, blowing stuff up in the woods - but in the end, it was never enough. Because they never learned to send the evil back where it came from.

Hate is like acid. Try to contain it, and you become the only thing that can hold it - glass. And when you do shatter, it gets really damn messy.

Eric and Dylan shattered. I never did, because I realized a long time earlier that holding it in was the path to self-destruction.

This is something politicians of all stripes do with concepts they're considering.

You have some odd group, loosely connected with the mainline, release a paper on some odd policy shift. You immediately decry the readiness of the idea, but never actually put the idea down.

Then, you sit back and watch what people do with it. Do your party bigwigs panic? Does your base embrace it? What do the major money sources say about it?

If you watch politics long enough with an eye for this sort of thing, you'll see this done everywhere.

So, considering it's the Republicans, I'm sure Reince Priebus and a few others will be monitoring talk radio, Breitbart, and the major news outlets to see how this is received. They'll also poll their elected officals to see if anyone called/wrote in about it.

So, if you like this, TALK ABOUT IT. Call into Rush Limbaugh or your local version of it. Call or email your R representatives, if you have any. Tell them you like this. Highlight the positives. Talk it up. Argue for it!

Keep in mind that the Republicans are, *right now*, reevaluating their platform for ideas that get people elected. Instead of being a snarky ass, this is a great time to show them that thoughts like this could get them the "youth vote". If you're willing to shed some of your preconceptions about politics in general and Republicans in particular, that is.

Why not use buttons?

Because you don't run out of buttons on a touchscreen.

Think of it this way: at my poll this year, I have 7 options for President. Even if you break down each race to its own screen, what's the likelihood you'd build in as many as 7 buttons, considering our 2-party system? Sure, you could put some candidates to "page 2", but imagine the whining and lawsuits those candidates would subject us to....

(and for the curious, the parties represented for President are Republican, Democratic, Constitution, Libertarian, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality Party, Green Party)

Barack Obama (as proxy for Harry Reid) pulled the plug on that one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8012171/President-Barack-Obamas-Yucca-Mountain-decision-is-a-blow-to-US-nuclear-power.html

We'll see if it ever moves again. Hopefully someone along the way will have more sense than this.

This canard about wanting to redistribute from the "Middle Class" to "fat-cats" is one of the oldest lies of leftists.

Since this is Slashdot, let's reach for a car analogy. Namely, the shade-tree mechanic.

One guy, with a basic chest of tools, can do a certain amount of work per day under his shade tree. A couple of brake jobs and an oil change or two is the most he'll do in a typical day. This work might net him $100 in profits on a day, assuming he can stay busy. Keeping a 5-day work-week, that's $500 a week, $26,000/year assuming he's in a climate without extreme heat/cold, or snow or rain, to slow him down. That also doesn't include the cost of wearing out tools, retraining for new tech, etc. And of course, the shade tree doesn't pay for health care, Social Security's employer-share, or a pension.

Now throw in a capitalist. This guy has a garage, full set of tools including dealership-quality diagnostics, hydraulic lift, engine lift, tire mounting station, and so forth. Our intrepid mechanic can now do anything from rebuilding an engine or transmission to high-speed oil changes with the bulk oil filler and waste oil drain. Darkness and heat/cold are no longer obstacles to his work, and the visibility/professionalism of the location allows for steadier work. The shade tree mechanic is now worth $42,830 on average (according to BLS in May 2010).

So yes, the capitalist owning the garage is making money off the shade-tree mechanic. But the garage owner is also assuming all the risk, tax implications, benefits costs, maintenance/upkeep costs and advertising cost. And the mechanic has roughly doubled his income (remember, $26,000 is an impossibly ideal situation) off the capabilities the capitalist brings to the party.

This is what we call a win/win. And it's the part the knee-jerk left-wingers refuse to see. If you can't see how capitalism has lifted our intrepid mechanic out of poverty, you're just willfully blind.

Actually, the Libertarians are having a strong effect on the Republican party. You'll notice that Ron Paul debated on the stage with the other Republican candidates, and got a strong response. The effect is usually sneered at as "The Tea Party". But if you look at any candidate labeled as a Tea Party candidate, you'll see a strong libertarian streak.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that, just before the Civil War, the Republicans WERE the 3rd party. The bad thing about a 2-party system is that, no matter who the 3rd-party is, if they get strong they eventually become one of the 2. The good thing about a 2-party system is that some fringe group (like the Greens or Austria's Freedom Party) can't hold the coalition government model hostage in order to advance their narrowly-supported agenda.

Stop repeating that lie. It's over 6 months from Franken's TrunkO'Votes' seating on July 1 2009 to Scott Brown's seating on January 19 2010.

Obamacare was introduced to the House on October 26 and passed on November 8. Even though your concerns about Senate members don't apply here, what was done in July, August, September, most of October, most of November, and in December?

Working hard there, I see.

The Senate created a version of that bill inside another bill on November 18, and passed it on December 24. What did they do during July, August, September, October, half of November and half of January?

I guess a budget would be too much to ask for.

Presidents are the de facto leader of their party. If Romney pushes a tax plan and the Republicans control the House (which they almost certainly will), then Romney's plan will pass.

In President Obama's first two years, Republicans didn't even have the votes in the Senate to do a filibuster, and were also the minority party in the House.

How did his tax policy fare?

When you need to cut costs in a country, you can't simply shed citizens to save money

This highlights the problem - you're projecting citizens to be employees of the government. They are, in truth, both owners and customers of government.

It is not the place of government to "find jobs for all of the ex-" whatever. Instead, by being as minimal and clear as possible, government helps create the sort of conditions and marketplaces where people can thrive doing business.