HaHa, I agree that it's pretty pimp. As you know Mike, I'm on the McCain side of things, but my contacts within the Obama campaign have more money than they know what to do with. They already rule the TV and radio advertising space.

I'm just wondering if an ad in a video game can functionally motivate a person to disconnect from XBox live and find their voter registration card, let alone how to find their precinct voting location.

Now, to one of my best science friends, how is it, in a world that is gradually increasing its level of entropy, one assumes the primary course of action is a larger and more powerful government when multi-nationalism has taken away the primary incentive for corporations and agencies to use American labor? You have a grander viewpoint than that which most Americans have been exposed, with your studies at Embry-Riddle and subsequent graduate learning, as well as private employment. Instead of finding ways for the USA to compete in a multi-national labor environment, why do Democrats and Obama believe raising corporate taxes and regulation will benefit and expand employment of Americans. China and India produce hundreds of thousands of engineers and researchers at a vastly reduced cost. Yet the plan which your candidate endorses would only hurt American's chances of gaining the lucrative and opportunistic employment which Barack and Nancy Pelosi fully endorse. It has been shown time and time again that democratic policies of higher taxation, guaranteed education, lack of choice in education opportunities, and guaranteed housing, as well as many others, lead to a situation where individuals are servants of the state. Cities where these policies have been held in place by Democrats for decades have led to high rates of unemployment and zero decrease in the amount of those living in poverty.

I have a vast amount of respect for the work that you and my old ERAU acquaintances and friends do, but there seems to be a disparity between the knowledge of science and that of economic and social successes achieved in history. It is only when governments have removed themselves from the role of savior of the people that they people have learned to grow and prosper through their own work and determination.

For instance, look at Burt Rutan with Scaled Composites, by removing himself from government funding and regulations he has been able to pursue his goals of private space exploration. Bigelow Aerospace is another primary, if not better example. They are the only entity outside of a government that has been able to apply the science and materials successfully into modules capable of orbiting. They will also soon pursue the roll-out of a private, by contract, space station that will compete with the ISS for experiments. Not to belabor the point, but Bigelow has committed $500,000,000.00 to launching and completing a private space station by 2015. NASA and our international partners have needed to commit $100,000,000,000.00 of tax-payer money to complete their space station. I'm sure Bigelow will end up having to spend more than $500 Million, but they will not have to nearly come close to the $100 Billion of the ISS.

Republicans believe in the individuals right to pursue and expand their own horizons. This is of course, not anarchy as a certain level of government is needed to insure safety to the general populace, but that is all that is needed. So, to wrap things up, why would you want to vote for an individual who wishes to decrease the ability of an individual to pursue the improvement of their condition? This is the outcome of Obama's plans to move America from a free-market to a socialist/highly regulatory form of government, more closely in line with France and China than with the entrepreneurship focused America that sparked the industrial revolution.