StrangeSox

He wasn't calling you a n*****, he meant those other people! And not in a racist way, just look at comedian Dave Chapelle use the word! Would that fly here? I don't think f***** should be treated differently. I don't actually favor suspension-heavy forums rules and I'm happy to see Duke express his disgusting views for everyone to see. But there are some decorum rules here (and the mods do an excellent job (imo) of not abusing their authority, picking on people, etc.), and I'd imagine that crossed the line.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) How can anyone complain about Abrams directing this series after the absolute drivel Lucas produced in the last 3 films? Heck, Woody Allen would be an upgrade. Because Abrams is kinda s***?

you're saying some kinda dumb stuff even if we know you're not being 100% serious.

Michigan lawmaker explains why his electoral vote rigging wasn't popular earlier in 2012: At least they're being honest about explicitly trying to rig the system in their favor. By the way, the research shows that switching to this system nation-wide is an anti-democratic, biasing idea. http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2013/01/25/w...y-biasing-idea/

I've done it as part of P90X. I don't know about the "stress relief" part, you're holding a lot of uncomfortable poses.

IIRC there are other issues with that, but at least the rules would be the same each time and not drawn by partisan politicians. One major f***-up with our system is that elected officials are in charge of both the redistricting and the voting processes, which allows them to tailor it to their benefits. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewco...;context=djclpp

http://www.ctpharmacists.org/files/public/methsummary.pdf

Have you seriously not bought anything with pseudoephedrine in it in the last 5 years?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) Doesn't Iowa have a pretty good re-destricting plan that is outsourced to a place that tries to do it based off of numbers and geography? they have some system like that.

Here's the research I was thinking of earlier. Current redistricting gives R's a +7.1 seat advantage. http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/g...des-do-it-myth/

gun stores do not have to keep inventories. background checks are destroyed within 24 hours. they don't have the tools or the information to systematically track straw purchases. if you have to wait until a gun is used in a crime to start gathering any data, then you've already lost most of the trail. still not sure why you're openly backing the gathering of information and the studying of it. even if you don't want to make a policy change based on that information, why would you oppose more understanding?

Inventories, actual numbers of guns, where they're bought and sold, background checks. Basically, any way to actually track and crack down on straw purchases and the dealers who enable them. e.g. start on page 2037, line 23: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/title/x...ing-quality.pdf

I don't know how you ultimately fix gerrymandering, but giving it an even higher incentive sure as hell isn't the way.

The states/counties/etc. are not allowed to collect certain types of data. FOIA doesn't mean s***.

lol

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Weren't three R's gerrymandered out of their seats right here in Illinois? Both sides do it. It seems like this is an issue because the northern states are losing population and electoral votes to the south and they don't like it. If the northern states did more to keep their populace from moving they would be less prone to whining. Hey I realize I live in a corrupt state that does nothing to face up to its problems. And they will replace this tool with another tool who has as her father, the most corrupt politician to ever be elected. But hey its the Chicago Way, even if its Springfield. Illinois was the worst from the Dem side, but the Republicans took it further and across more states. I'll post the research later today.

Studying guns and public policy = TOOK 'ER GUNZ!!!!

lol, just can't help bringing up gays and rape

The only states proposing plans to do this are the ones where Obama won but Republicans control the state legislature. Democrats don't have any similar situations where Romney won but they control. Republicans in Texas and Georgia and every other solidly-red state have zero motivation to do this because they'll be giving up some of their guaranteed electoral votes, nor would Democrats in Illinois, California and New York have any reason to make this switch. Every state is absolutely within its rights to do this, as Nebraska and Maine already do. But here again we see the naked power grab--when Obama won one of the Nebraska districts in 2008, the Republican state legislature introduced bills to switch the state to a winner-takes-all.

The redistricting tables won't turn for at least two more Presidential elections, and that's if Democrats could make enough gains against the heavily gerrymandered districts to take control of the state legislatures. They're only pushing for this in states that went for Obama but are controlled by Republicans. I'm not seeing Georgia or Texas Republicans wanting to adopt this system. It's just unusual that they're being so brazen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) The Virginia state legislature is officially moving forward on a plan to split their electoral votes by district. Effectively, in the last election, this would have neutered Virginia as a swing state. The President would have received 4 electoral votes from them, despite winning a majority in the state. Credit where credit is due: Florida GOP House Speaker Knocks Electoral College Scheme

If your body isn't actually more efficient at converting stored energy into motion, no. I don't know if that's the case, though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) We're not talking about curing cancer, we're talking about doing a study on the impact of guns. A small research firm could handle that task pretty easily. One of your liberal think tanks should be able to do that pretty easily. There's absolutely no reason why the government "must" get involved with that. And yes, the NRA doesn't want it to be researched because the only conclusion is guns kill people when used improperly (shocking!) So of course that's going to sound awful. Biden and Obama and their counterparts will stand up and talk about how guns are killing children and innocent people, and they'll leave out that little statistic about it happening less than 1% of the time. It's absolutely a no-win situation for the NRA or gun advocates so I don't blame them. Researching public and health policy as it relates to guns is a "no-win" for the NRA, ergo their efforts to block such research from ever happening are justified?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) I guess show me a cite for this. My wife works daily on this very task - she gets rich people to give Rush money so that they can develop/research new medicine/tests/whatever. My mom works at Northwestern in the oncology unit doing her own research and her grant was privately funded. There are large health initiatives funded by the government, i'm not denying that. But the majority of medical innovation comes from chasing the almighty dollar - if you come up with a better machine/pill/test/whatever, you get rich. Coming up with a better machine/pill/test/whatever is coming up with a marketable product. Supporting that technological research and development is the wealth of basic research and development, which is done primarily via government facilities or grants. Bell Labs and some others used to do private-sector versions, but they've all been shuttered. Can't justify multi-million dollar research budgets that won't show a return for decades, if ever. So, yes, that technological innovation comes from profit-seeking, but they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Lol, you crack me up man. You're so sure of yourself and so wrong most of the time. Don't you think there's also much $$ to be made by the private sector? Not for basic research or public policy research, really. There's some independent research e.g. Brookings, but there's still no good reason to expressly forbid the CDC or NIH from researching it.