So anybody who doesn't "Get with the fu cking program" get's deported or jailed? Oooohh...will there be eugenics? Look at my Olympics thread... if you are right, I'm going to save up on my money and get all of the advantages I can get lest I get jailed, deported, go unemployed or lose every thing. Gee...I need to go to bed.

Not quite. Think more the eisenhower administration minus jim crow and with significantly less sexism/homophobia/prudery with elements of Reagan's morning in america(more poppy/edgy pop culture) and the 20s red scare.

Regarding eugenics it gets complex. Incidently, the US already bans genetic discrimination and negative eugenics is seen as quite unPC these days. However, positive eugenics (as in paying people woh are smart/healthy/rich to have kids/giving them tax breaks) is coming in both scenarios.

Yes they are.

Let's play the hand out

Scenario 1: McCain wins

Let's presume McCain wins and gets in his 2 justices plus a compliant dem congress. We're talking repeal of Roe V. Wade, continued strong FCC, etc. Removing Roe V. Wade removes the conservative base's single rallying point and energizes the left. We're talking a move to the left on social matters not seen since the 60s/progressive era with the trend against neoliberal/washington consensus economics still going on but not being spurred by this. Basically, things change to the point where in 2012 I have a bit of a hard time deciding who to vote for and in 2016 I vote down the line republican because the democrats were too socially left for me.

Scenario 2: Obama Wins

Obama wins and manages to move things slightly more in a moderate direction but his incompetence drives things off the rails leading to a backlash. The end result is a deadlock on social issues on the federal level, de-emphasizing morals/nanny state controls in favor of focusing on security concerns. We're talking 20s red scare level purges against muslims, mormons(the whole xenophobia plus percieved polygamy bit), elements of the far left(the blame america crowd, anarchists), greens, minority ethnic nationalists and some of the more strange lifestyle movements(the transgender movement is crushed to the point where it doesn't recover for a generation, the more outre elements of gay culture are repressed, hippies are repressed, goths/emos get repressed). Identity politics is savagely repressed.

I'm still curious if you guys would be ok with this if Obama took funds away from any schools that didn't force the uniforms on the kids.

I would vote for McCain in that case.

Go slightly down for a while then creep up to around $9-$10 by 2018.

Necons fade in favor of Paleocons, the big wigs in the party become Jindal, Palin, Mike Pence and John Thune.

So the GOP becomes totally unelectable? I can live with that.

We all know that sometime in the Truman administration, the idea of universal healthcare was briefly proposed but then shot down. What if due to various compromises and a more coherent plan( think something like what the swiss have( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland for what it's like), a system with compulsory insurance since something on a more socialized model wouldn't fly), Universal Healthcare got introduced in 1948. How is America different 60 years later with the introduction of UHC?

Stop socializing the costs for medicine so much and costs for smokers wouldn't be so much. Instead of our current neither fish nor fowl system where the feds pay the bills for HMOS put in something like the swiss system of UHC(compulsory insurance)./

Every single francophone MP.

My guess is we'll see a gradual shift in attitudes to not care so much about people's personal backgrounds.

Highest: 18%
Lowest: 18%

Because flat tax schemes work soo well.

Why not keep it at our levels and toss out the deductions?

Why can't we just use wind,solar,water. Just cause France doe it does not mean we should. It would be very dangerous if something happend. And things always happen.

You do realize that Cherynobel was because of corrupt and incompetent soviet administration? If your logic was true, most of the first world outside of the US would be irradiated wastelands due to using nuke power.

Why not put in a program of using as much nuke power possible as a percentage of electricity and as a sop to the gaianists also massively invest in alt-energy and finding ways to re-use the radioactive material from nukes in power generation as much as possible? Happy now?

Fascinating, the concept of 'personal responsibility' eludes the knuckleheads on Los Angeles city council. Isn't it funny how intrusive social engineering is perfectly kosher when done to poor/minority people? They're not talking about banning new fast food places in the nicer parts of LA. I know Los Angeles is a cesspool but this is beyond self-parody.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-fastfood30-2008jul30,0,7844906.story

Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A.
Pollo
Email Picture
Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times
A Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants late last year found that South L.A. had the highest concentration of fast-food eateries.
The one-year moratorium, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, is aimed at attracting restaurants serving healthier fare to the area, where a study found 30% of children are obese.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 30, 2008
» Discuss Article    (60 Comments)

A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.

The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald's, Carl's Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted.

 

    * Fast-food ban
      Fast-food ban

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.

"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.

The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.

The area contains about 500,000 residents, including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.

The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.

Still, several fast-food workers told the council that the panel was ignoring the good things their franchises accomplish. The workers argued that fast-food establishments provide residents with job opportunities and, in recent years, nutritious menu options.

"McDonald's believes in healthy choices," said Don Bailey, who has owned and operated the company's restaurants in South Los Angeles for 22 years.

Another foe of the measure was Madelyn Alfano, whose company, Maria's Italian Kitchen, has restaurants in Sherman Oaks, Brentwood and other parts of the city. Alfano said the law would create new red tape and force restaurateurs to spend thousands more to start businesses.

"The intent of this bill, and this proposal, is a very good one. There is an obesity problem," said Alfano, whose company recently opened an express version of the restaurant in downtown Los Angeles. But "I don't think the restaurant industry is to blame."

Moratoriums frequently last as long as two years at City Hall, to give planning officials enough time to craft new zoning rules. Perry said businesses can apply for a "hardship exemption" if they are intent on opening a fast-food restaurant.

The councilwoman also said she expected city officials to come up with financial assistance for some restaurants.

"This will buy us time to aggressively market the district and show potential developers that we are not only open for business, but have some substantive incentives to make it worth their while to develop in South L.A.," she said.

molly.hennessy-fiske

@latimes.com

david.zahniser@latimes.com

Major HP.

I'm normally pro-gun rights but I agree with the gun consfication in NOLA. my question is when are they going to do it in south-central Los Angeles, Newark, Detroit and Harlem? Those are all places that could benefit from the same.

Obama: E: +2.50 S: +5.21
McCain: E: +5.00, S: +7.85

    My #1 is:   You are a libertarian conservative. You hold that the free market is the best way of organising economic activity, but you combine this with adherence to more traditional social values of authority and duty.    
   My #2 is:   You are a social liberal. Like all liberals, you believe in individual freedom as a central objective - but you believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, healthcare etc. can be just as damaging to liberty as can an oppressive state. As a result, social liberals are generally the most outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with an enabling state providing public services to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.    
   My #3 is:   You are a market liberal. You adhere to the traditional liberal belief in freedom, and take this to mean negative rather than positive freedom - i.e. a slimmed-down state is the best guarantor of freedom. You will therefore support a laissez-faire economic policy, and you will be reasonably tolerant on the social front - though less emphatically so than social liberals.    
   My #4 is:   You are a fascist. You combine a strong belief in the nation with authoritarian social values, and a willingness to impose your views upon others. You strongly oppose immigration, and are willing to take radical action to combat it.    
   My #5 is:   You adhere to the Third Way. The Third Way is a fairly nebulous concept, but it rests on the idea of combining economic efficiency - i.e. a market economy with some intervention - with social responsibility. The focus is emphatically on the community as a whole, and not necessarily equality per se. Adherents of the Third Way range from moderate to conservative in their social views, and have recently been willing to take a "tough" line on a range of social issues.    
   My #6 is:   You are a classical socialist, believing in equality of outcome as a principle. This might mean greater equality (e.g. Old Labour), or as close to absolute equality as possible. However, you will believe in an extensive public sector, covering not just public services (transport, healthcare etc.) but probably also the 'commanding heights' of industry (e.g. iron and steel). Your views on personal morality will be reasonably tolerant, in general, but there is considerable variation within this political group.    
   My #7 is:   You are an ecologist or green. You believe that the single greatest challenge of our time is the threat to our natural environment, and you feel that radical action must be taken to protect it - whether in the enlightened self-interest of humanity (in the tradition of 'shallow ecologism') or, more radically, from the perspective of the ecosystem as a whole, without treating humans as the central species (deep ecologism).    
   My #8 is:   You are a social democrat. Like other socialists, you believe in a more economically equal society - but you have jettisoned any belief in the idea of the planned economy. You believe in a mixed economy, where the state provides certain key services and where the productivity of the market is harnessed for the good of society as a whole. Many social democrats are hard to distinguish from social liberals, and they share a tolerant social outlook.    
   My #9 is:   You are a communist. You believe, at least in theory, in absolute equality of income - and you oppose the whole capitalist system per se. You want to abolish the market economy and replace it with one in which the workers (usually meaning the state) control the building blocks of the economy. Your views on personal morality will vary; traditional communists tended to be more authoritarian, while modern "eurocommunists" tend to take a liberal line.    
   My #10 is:   You are a Christian democrat - or, in the UK, a "One Nation conservative"; in other words, although you share the usual conservative belief in stability and duty, you believe that such duties include a responsibility on the part of the better-off to help those who are less fortunate. You will be socially conservative, but in favour of a mixed economy where the state does have a role in providing public services. Christian democracy arose after World War II, succeeding more doctrinaire Catholic parties dating from the 1870s.    
   My #11 is:   You are an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalists take the Jeffersonian belief that "that government is best which governs least", and extend it - "that government is best which governs not at all". The theory of anarcho-capitalism is that the market can replace the state as a regulator of individual behaviour (resulting in private courts, private policing etc.).    
   My #12 is:   You are an anarcho-communist, aiming for a society without the state, based on small, decentralised groups living communally.

It'd be interesting to try an anti-Southern California gerrymander.

That'd result in a more socially liberal but less leftist composition of the representatives california sends to DC.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Best post in thread.

I can live with that.

Would it be possible to redistrict california in a way so that areas which are like south central LA are a majority of no district?

Nixon obviously. JFK had a fetish for community service plus a foreign policy mindset that nearly caused WWIII.

James Moran is a good congressman.