Very good interactive election result map. You can change parameters and base data.
Try this. It is enlightening.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/re.../explorer.html
[Reply]

More blue in 2008 than the 2004 election.
[Reply]

Ridiculous!
[Reply]

Obviously.
If you zoom the controls to rich vs poor, densely populated vs less populated, etc, you get interesting patterns.
[Reply]

Never happen, not in a million years
[Reply]

I saw this yesterday and couldnt believe it. So let me get this straight, I can go fight for the freedom this country enjoys (which is bad for my health at times). But if one of these freedoms could possibly be linked to a heath issue and therefore somehow be loosely tied to raising health costs I am now going to have that freedom taken back. Horse dung. I hope this doesnt fly. Tell me I can drop bombs, make me give out candy and hand shakes but for Gods sake let me finish the day with a smoke and my guys.
[Reply]

Considering the outcome of the election, I guess it would be quite obvious.:-)
I wasn't thinking when I made that last post.:-)
[Reply]

I don't think they have the Balls to do this. I can see them banning the sale of all Tobacco products on post but, Outlawing something thats legal? Not gonna happen.
[Reply]

My wife and I are looking at liquidating all of our assets and moving to Clifton Ireland. Don't know if we can do it but the loss of freedom in this country is putrid.
[Reply]

Sorta good news...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/...tary_smoking_9
[Reply]

We have to stop the partisanship. Bickering that one side is good and the other is bad... It is a tactic our government uses to deflect real issues. While we argue back and forth about me being right and you being wrong, they pass such and such bills right under our noses.

What is important is that the government should have limited power. It should serve to protect us from foreign and domestic threat. Anything beyond this sort of thing is over stepping it's powers.

Now the reason this is legitimate is because we the taxpayers are flipping the bill for the medical costs for soldiers in the military. This is the reasoning behind this and how they are making a legitimate argument.

I am fascinated by our country's plight. How bloated our government is. How it enjoys trivializing our freedoms, and especially how we passively watch it happen. Personally, I am not really sure what can be done about it short of an upheavel of epic proportion. Guess time will tell.
[Reply]

And also everyone else in or retired from the government. An incomplete argument is not legitimate in my book.
Since WE pay, let US decide. I buy cigars for the troops. Maybe that would become a federal offense.:-)
[Reply]

Noted. I think it goes without saying that this entire idea is full of issues.
[Reply]

I wasn't going to say anything, but now I feel compelled to share.

Yes, we the taxpayers are footing the bill for military medical costs. It's that knowledge that makes it a little easier to see that chunk leave my paycheck every week. I have family and friends who have sacrificed for this country and I feel like it's the least I can do.

I think I'll end my rant there before I get myself too worked up.
[Reply]

Partisanship is the best thing that can happen in our government. Our founding fathers created a two party system. This is part of the checks and balances in our gov't, and it used to help limit govt's power. Constant bickering between parties may be annoying and raise our blood pressure, but it keeps Congress from pushing through every bill that comes before them. But now we all want bipatisanship. Everytime we see bipartisanship, the gov't merely gets bigger and bigger.

Sorry for the political rant, but I don't think I'm breaking the rules here. I didn't pick sides.
[Reply]

I just heard Mark Davis, guest-hosting on the Rush Limbaugh show, announce that the Pentagon was NOT going to enforce any type of tobacco ban on the Military. :-)

Apparently, someone in the Pentagon has some common sense - probably someone who has been a ground-pounder during his career. At least there is some good news this week, regarding our guys who are over there! :-)


:-)
[Reply]

:-):-)
[Reply]

My understanding is that they will not enforce a ban in areas where fighting is taking place. I bet they still push for a ban stateside.
[Reply]

Its really only applicable when at least one side has our best interests at heart. I can't say I have seen that from either major party in my lifetime.
[Reply]

The person with the common sense was Secretary of Defense Gates. He said no to this idea because smoking was a stress relief he wasn't going to take away from the troops. He is considering the incremental ban over time though. Here's the story:

The Pentagon said today that it will not ban the use of tobacco in the military, the Associated Press reports.

The announcement comes after a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veteran Affairs recommended terminating the use and sale of tobacco products on military property. The study also recommended the military ensure enlistees are smoke-free.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't want to add to the stress levels of troops fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking away tobacco products. He also said that Gates plans on pursuing the goal of a smoke-free military, according to the AP.
[Reply]