Jason Alexanders

He would be impressive. It would be interesting for African Americans to realize that workers benefit most when the owners of their companies are in a position to hire people. I just hope to see Romney, Huckabee, and Palin to argue and for Herman to slip under the radar.

My idea was to get $9/$1,000 instead of the typical $33/$1,000 on some Holyoke property in the attempt to create 50,000 jobs in 12 buildings over 25 acres. My budget for the demolition would be $7.2 million and would hope not to spend more than $20 million (equal to a 9% return) as it would expect a property tax receipts of $1.8 million/year on the $200 million property. The big problem is it is probably zoned residential and there is probably a sky-line restriction, too. Darn! The area has been dead for over 40 years; it would reduce the regional unemployment rate by 7.5% from 12% to 4.5%. I was hoping for 12 biotech buildings. The typical rate is $19 per $1,000 for households ($12.5 to $21 in nearby towns) and $33 per $1,000 for businesses ($28 to $36 in nearby towns).

in the Hamptons? I believe the former spends it while the latter accumulates wealth.

This would involve Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney or Deval Patrick and Chris Dod in 2012 shall their respective candidate lose. Personally, I hope, it's McCain/Palin vs. Patrick/Dodd in 2012.

He had hired his wife as a social secretary. I am curious if Barack might appoint his wife as Secretary of State or some other position or she will simply be the first lady.

Elect Obama, pay a 70% tax rate. It's scary, but it's definitely possible. Remember to triple the amounts of the tax table under the Carter administration to bring it to present day values.

Source:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ add /publications/show/151.html

I have been given the choice of Norwalk CT, Scranton PA, Wilkes Barre PA, Williamsburg, PA, Columbus OH, Lima, OH, Akron, OH, Omaha NE, Phoenix AZ? I was wondering if you knew any up and coming towns that were cheap, had a rent of under $800 per month, and were not likely to have mold. Thanks for all your help.

What happens if McCain tells the truth/goes after about the radicalness of Barack Obama that he raises taxes on people making more than $42,000 and his associations? What happens if he can indicate what happened in Michigan as a result of higher taxes like that Obama is proposing.

On the other hand, what if he takes the high road, having been coached by Palin, and shows how naive his opponent was on his economic prowess? What if Obama gets rattled? What happens if McCain puts out a plan for energy independence and goes into depth as to how he'll pay for it?

Good luck to McCain/Palin supporters. I don't think you'll need it though. At least there won't be an October surprise against McCain like if he was 1-2 points ahead. Thank god! I'm trying to get opinions from Obama and McCain supporters as to what might be the most effective strategy for McCain or Obama

Just a couple of funny gaffes that happened:

Obama Referred To An "Inhaler" As A "Breathalyzer" And Then A "Inhalator" Twice. Obama: "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when if you, they just gave, you gave treatment early, and they got some treatment, and a breathalyzer, or an inhalator, not a breathalyzer (Laughter.) I haven't had a lot of sleep in the last 48 hours, so. If they had an inhalator, inhaler, I'm still stumbling over this word. You know what I mean. You know what I mean. Then we would save money." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Bristol, VA, 6/5/08)

Obama: "What they'll say is, well it will cost too much money. It would cost about, it it it would cost about the same as what we would spend … it … o-over the course of ten years it would cost what it would cost us…it it. Alright, okay, we're going to. It-it would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up though. I'm glad..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Bristol, VA, 6/5/08)

http://www.gop.com/BarackGaffes/

The reason why I put that out there is my question is do you care about these gaffes when the country faces something really serious?

Just a couple of funny gaffes that happened:

Obama Referred To An "Inhaler" As A "Breathalyzer" And Then A "Inhalator" Twice. Obama: "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when if you, they just gave, you gave treatment early, and they got some treatment, and a breathalyzer, or an inhalator, not a breathalyzer (Laughter.) I haven't had a lot of sleep in the last 48 hours, so. If they had an inhalator, inhaler, I'm still stumbling over this word. You know what I mean. You know what I mean. Then we would save money." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Bristol, VA, 6/5/08)

Obama: "What they'll say is, well it will cost too much money. It would cost about, it it it would cost about the same as what we would spend … it … o-over the course of ten years it would cost what it would cost us…it it. Alright, okay, we're going to. It-it would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up though. I'm glad..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Bristol, VA, 6/5/08)

http://www.gop.com/BarackGaffes/

Do you think if we do the five following things under a McCain/Palin administration that we will reach $2.25 per gallon?

1) Alt. Energy (wind, solar, water, biofuels)

2) Eliminate tariffs on sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil and start to develop it in Louisania

3) Drill, drill, drill

4) Create nuclear power - this is the key ingredient

5) Start creating a natural gas pipeline

Good luck to all.

Conservatives appeal to indivdual responsibility, but most people with AS have liberal leanings, thus I'm curious if it's a fluke of nature whether they are satisfied with being diagnosed early is a relief resulted from their liberalness and that conservatives are less likely to be concerned with the power of reflectiveness but more on the net result of finding out Aspergers later in life. I'm also curious about the ethics of diagnosing/experimenting with children for Aspergers or delaying a diagnosis with possible home-schooling. I'm curious for the feedback of all, but if you are conservative, please state so. I'm 24, was diagnosed with AS last year, and am in the great minority that is highly satisfied to have been diagnosed as an adult rather than as a child.

I ask this because many of us are in special classes and I'm curious if such "assistance" may be damaging to a kid, especially in regards to the over-diagnosis of AS.

I am curious if you think his pick can help McCain get over 300 electoral votes.

I'm curious why you think people may vote for Obama (or for McCain) w/o doing the prior research. I'm interested in knowing whether people think there vote is insignificant and that thorough research is simply a waste of time. Just curious.

I'm curious if there's a reason why Obama is not supporting his brother. Is it estrangement or is there an underlying reason? Just curious.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/08/...

Read this article.

Before you consider avoiding Senator McCain, please read this article. It is a heart wrenching article on the coldness of Mr. Obama who didn't engage in infantcide but who refused to pass a law to prevent it. There's a difference in being pro-choice and being pro-infantcide in which Senator Obama is; he's pro-infantcide since he supports partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is infanticide when it requires an active form of euthanasia and not simply suffociation.

I am not trying to change your view but simply mention Obama's stance 9 years ago in which a nurse pleaded with him to pass a law that would allow for treatment of an aborted baby that was born alive. The question is whether it was wrong for Obama to support a bill that prohibited passive euthanasia for a partial-birth abortion baby that is born live with the hopes it will perish because of its underdevelopment.

Partial birth abortion is so haneous; it typically involves poking a hole in a baby's skull to result in death; it doesn't involve a natural death involving suffocation. That's a major distinction since 95% of the public considers abortion to involve suffocation or a "natural" death. They never think of it as a brutal slaying, a poisoning, or a burning alive or if the baby is delivered to be starved to death (if the baby can breathe on its own, i.e. beyond 7-8 months).

In this case, it involved a baby born live in the hopes it would die from underdevelopment. It requires a Kevorkian style killing style rather than a passive form of euthanasia involving the denying of medical treatment.

Even those who support the denial of medical treatment believe that a person should have to clearly constent to passive or active euthanasia.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/08/...

Read this article.

Before you consider avoiding Senator McCain, please read this article. It is a heart wrenching article on the coldness of Mr. Obama who didn't engage in infantcide but who refused to pass a law to prevent it. There's a difference in being pro-choice and being pro-infantcide in which Senator Obama is; he's pro-infantcide since he supports partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is infanticide when it requires an active form of euthanasia and not simply suffociation.

I am not trying to change your view but simply mention Obama's stance 9 years ago in which a nurse pleaded with him to pass a law that would allow for treatment of an aborted baby that was born alive. The question is whether it was wrong for Obama to support a bill that prohibited passive euthanasia for a partial-birth abortion baby that is born live with the hopes it will perish because of its underdevelopment.

Partial birth abortion is so haneous; it typically involves poking a hole in a baby's skull to result in death; it doesn't involve a natural death involving suffocation. That's a major distinction since 95% of the public considers abortion to involve suffocation or a "natural" death. They never think of it as a brutal slaying, a poisoning, or a burning alive or if the baby is delivered to be starved to death (if the baby can breathe on its own, i.e. beyond 7-8 months).

In this case, it involved a baby born live in the hopes it would die from underdevelopment. It requires a Kevorkian style killing style rather than a passive form of euthanasia involving the denying of medical treatment.

Even those who support the denial of medical treatment believe that a person should have to clearly constent to passive or active euthanasia.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/08/...

Read this article.

Before you consider avoiding Senator McCain, please read this article. It is a heart wrenching article on the coldness of Mr. Obama who didn't engage in infantcide but who refused to pass a law to prevent it. There's a difference in being pro-choice and being pro-infantcide in which Senator Obama is; he's pro-infantcide since he supports partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is infanticide when it requires an active form of euthanasia and not simply suffociation.

I am not trying to change your view but simply mention Obama's stance 9 years ago in which a nurse pleaded with him to pass a law that would allow for treatment of an aborted baby that was born alive. The question is whether it was wrong for Obama to support a bill that prohibited passive euthanasia for a partial-birth abortion baby that is born live with the hopes it will perish because of its underdevelopment.

Partial birth abortion is so haneous; it typically involves poking a hole in a baby's skull to result in death; it doesn't involve a natural death involving suffocation. That's a major distinction since 95% of the public considers abortion to involve suffocation or a "natural" death. They never think of it as a brutal slaying, a poisoning, or a burning alive or if the baby is delivered to be starved to death (if the baby can breathe on its own, i.e. beyond 7-8 months).

In this case, it involved a baby born live in the hopes it would die from underdevelopment. It requires a Kevorkian style killing style rather than a passive form of euthanasia involving the denying of medical treatment.

Even those who support the denial of medical treatment believe that a person should have to clearly constent to passive or active euthanasia.

Proposal:

Under 3 months - 1st trimester - no penalty

2nd Trimester - 5 tier punishment

1) 1st time - $5K fine

2) 2nd time - 1 year in jail

3) 3rd time - 5 years imprisionment (or 5-10 years)

4) 4th time - 15 years imprisionment (or 10-20 years)

5) 5th time - Life without possibility of parole

After 6 months - same punishment as a live baby or ATLEAST

1) 1st offense - 20 years (or 15-30 years)

2) 2nd offense - life without parole

McCain supposedly wants to dramatically ease the process of adoption and that's a great thing as there are 148 million orphans in the world (probably less than 30 million in the developed world).

1 hour ago - 3 days left to answer.

Does anyone know why Al Gore, Ken Salazar, or Jeb Bush didn't spoil things in this primaries and stir things up, among others? Would anyone like to see both Bloomberg and Gingrich, not or, as independents so that each party is hugely affected and a Dem or a GOP might end up in 3rd place?

I'm a disgruntled conservative who will probably stay home on election day as I have to choose between the most liberal person in the Senate and a person who would likely have a military draft. That's a very nice position to be in. Anyone share my plight?

I want a economic conservative, since the economy is looking for supply-side economics; it isn't looking for big government. Anyone endorse this belief?