Actually, I couldn't wait to propose question number 2.

You've said that you have suffered from depression in the past.  Would you elaborate as to whether this was clinically diagnosed or whether you simply felt sad one day and called it depression.  If it was clinically diagnosed, was it deemed chemical or situational depression?  If it was chemical depression, did you take medication for your condition, and if so did you complete the treatment and deemed no longer 'depressed by your psychologist / psychiatrist (which ever the case may be).  I must assume you are no longer in a state of depression, situational, chemical, or otherwise, else why would you bother running for office.  You wouldn't expect voters to put a representative who might be suffering from chronic depression in office, would you?  Or, perhaps, are you also insane?  Should your constituents be concerned by your mental health, sir?

Question three.

An intern comes up to you with a big cigar, what do you do.

I should explain, Einstein, that my role in this is merely to provide you a venue to clarify issues your constituents might have with your candidacy for state representative.  Thank you for your candid and open responses to my questions so far. 

(Insert audible scoff and wry look at the camera here).

Regarding question 1.  Are those two the only subsidies you would put under review? You said there were several.  What others might you find to be fraudulent after being elected?  If there are more subsidies you are planning willing to put under review, would you come clean to your constituents and plainly say which they are, sir?  Should your constituents worry that once elected you plan to go on a rampage against government programs and subsidies of all shapes and sizes, then?  If, however, those are the only two subsidy programs on your radar, some of your constituents might ask why so few?  Surely there are more targets on your radar screen, Einstein, but you're not telling us which they are.  Why is that, Einstein?  What is your hidden agenda in the matter of slashing government programs? 

My question is this: if those are the only two subsidy programs your office is to put under review, you would be willing to promise your constituents as such?  In other words, will you promise that those are the only two subsidy programs you will put under review during your term in office, sir?  If you are not willing to make a promise as such, then why is it, sir, that your constituents should trust you with regards to anything you might promise them during your campaign, since it is clear you are a hiding some sort of secret agenda for a personal vendetta against subsidy programs.

My campaign has a starting point on issues where waste and fraud exists, not an ending point until it is all gone.

A campaign promise of mine however is to make sure the net amount 'reaching the streets', as it were, would stay the same and/or increase per type of program. So Foodstamps, for instance, wont be negatively affected.

What I am saying is that such programs such as the Bridges to Change program are way more effective for way less cost than the Central City Concern program for housing the homeless is. *voice raised, eyes directly at camera* Let's use what works, not what costs more!

In regards to the other questions, I am a divorcee as well as a victim of domestic violences. Now to which I am a Christian, and some Christan beliefs denounce divorce, but as a victim of domestic violence (with a successful conviction against her) I rest assured all Christian groups that are in large numbers will accept this as they all have provisions for rape and abuse.

So when do I get to talk transportation, the economy and my other campaign aspects?

But I did cover it, and as voters bring me stories of waste and fraud I will look into the story and make cuts where fraud and waste, such as platinum plated, diamond studded bridge proposal by my opponent. At least for 1.5 billion, and less traffic lanes than the 500 million dollar proposal, I hope her bridge has that stuff to make up the difference.

We need to end crony capitalism, and get on to Making Oregon's Future Bigger, Better, and Brighter!

Let's take the I-5 bridge as an example. The 'money on the streets' in this case is a bridge with light rail, vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian lanes.

The background issue is how much to spend on it. That is where the waste is. Not the end result, but the means to reach the end result.

thought this thread is about the Neutrino thing

yay for ESA!!!

oh my

Zarf is an f-mod, now?

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> oh my

Zarf is an f-mod, now?

Just a few days ago. 

nice to see you registered, wish you all the best