"That boy has a pretty mouth. Fake Lawyer, Real convict.
#7 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2021-05-13 02:44 PM"

Definitely has a future as a "Mouth Piece".

"I don't know much about this 'DNA' stuff you mention, but the second shot turned me into a newt.
#11 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS AT 2021-05-11 09:45 AM"

Gingrich?

There is a distinct, but salient, difference between having the ability to create an alternate reality and actively courting an alternate reality. It's akin to a scientist deciding a conclusion and then fudging' an experiment to "prove" that conclusion. It's essentially gaslighting oneself. Once one decides to follow that path of "reasoning", anything (or nothing!) can be proven to be real. The danger for a society is not that "some" members of a society will engage in these mental gymnastics, but that a significant (even controlling) percentage will elect (no pun) to choose to go down that dead-end path.

"'18 percent of the population controls 52 percent of the Senate seats. That's a fact.'
I question that. Sounds like some sort of contorting statistic type of answer.
#7 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2021-04-28 04:53 PM"

Current total US population of States with Senators is 330.6 million.

18% of 330.6 million = 59.5 million.

Current total number of Senate seats = 100.

52% 0f 100 = 52.

52 Senate seats come from 26 states.

Current total population of 26 states with the lowest population = 58.1 million.

58.1 million is actually 17.56% (slightly less than 18%).

Speaking of pathetic...

It's been awhile since I've seen such a huge bundle of selective, cherry-picked anecdotes in a single post.

To say that any one of these items has been completely ignored by "Liberals" is ludicrously disingenuous. You would be on much firmer ground to claim they were ignored by the GOP! If you don't see that, then you're correct. You probably never will understand.

To avoid any future risks of your head exploding, I'd suggest you crawl back into your bubble and just listen to the echoes.

" or the imminent danger of injury or damage"

And just how is this determined? That's the wording (aka loophole) which gives LEO the absolute authority to do as they please.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy

Re: #34 | POSTED BY FAMILY_VALUES AT 2021-04-16 04:13 AM

Still waiting on a response to my #56 from about 36 hours ago. Given your claimed familiarity with statistics, I shouldn't have to explain sample size and random samples.

Re: #34

Thanx for the link.
However, you do realize the link you provided is about an analysis of a single county whereas the link provided from the CDC refers to the entire US. That is not even comparing apples to oranges!

" I do know that a healthy, 30 year old woman has a roughly 0% chance of dying from COVID. That is not the case of a woman in this age range taking the vaccine - especially if we include the AstraZeneca vaccine.
#29 | POSTED BY FAMILY_VALUES AT 2021-04-16 02:18 AM

Really?

With this one action, former President Trump has done more to drain the swamp than he did in the previous 4+ years.

As the layers of this onion' slowly get peeled away, it seems many of these folks involved in the January 6th attack are not "casual protestors" who were caught up in the moment. Rather, it appears they have many other connections/plans for additional mayhem. It seems likely that it will become increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that they really are domestic terrorists.

Initially, this sounded like it would be the Don Quixote Brigade tilting at windmills, but now it sounds more like Mission Impossible. Like Mission Impossible, if any of these recruits become involved in anything illegal, one can be sure their organizers will disavow any knowledge of their actions'.

Nothing like having a different administration AND a different Attorney General.

"Joe Manchin says it's no fun being the most powerful man in Washington."

Powerful, yes.
Rather in the same way the ship Ever Given was recently powerful in the Suez Canal
and its usefulness was similarly.

#19

Thanks for the info.
When you said it sounded like the couple already found a couple rare pennies, I thought you meant more than the single 1937 penny reported in the article. That penny is not particularly rare and even if it were uncirculated (highly unlikely) it would only be worth a couple bucks retail. More likely it was a circulated 1937 penny and only worth maybe 15 cents retail.

#15

I had not heard that story.
Can you provide a link?

A suggestion to the recipient of the pennies:

Contact the local numismatist (coin) club.
At a minimum, many of these pennies might be old (pre-1982) pennies which are 95% copper composition instead of recent pennies (which are almost 98% Zinc). The old pennies have about double (2 cents worth) of copper. Besides all that, there may be some rare pennies. Even a somewhat common rarity (e.g. a "wheat cent": pre-1959) is worth around 10 cents.

Of course, it would take some time to sort through the pennies, but a knowledgeable coin collector would be able to sort them quite quickly. A budding young and/or retired numismatist might eagerly jump at the opportunity to sort through a large batch of pennies. They might even do it "for fun" or a nominal fee.

Bottom line: this batch of pennies might ultimately pay out as double (or more!) than the face value. Seems like that would be a perfectly ironic ending to this story!

First indication that it's working:

When former President Trump begins to take credit for the action.

RE: #1 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2021-03-21 05:11 PM

BINGO!

They should think carefully before they get what they wish.

That two-edged sword will definitely come into play.
It doesn't take much imagination to speculate the amount of whining and whimpering when that new reality comes to pass.

RE: #37 | POSTED BY FAMILY_VALUES AT 2021-03-19 04:42 AM

Seems odd that you would admonish someone about their ability to read a graph while attaching so much significance to a single plotted data point in a set of data rife with variance due to multiple factors.

Maybe monthly averages, especially extending both before and after 2019 would better illustrate the situation.

Re: #31 | POSTED BY FAMILY_VALUES AT 2021-03-19 01:26 AM

" No such background check is required for private sales at gun shows in the majority of states.
#26 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2021-03-13 08:34 AM'

*Anywhere*. Not required *anywhere* in the majority of states for private sales. It has nothing to do with Gun Shows and is a weird obfuscation of a major issue when people insist on bringing them up. No such background check is required for private sales at gun shows in the majority of states.
#26 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2021-03-13 08:34 AM | FLAG:

*Anywhere*. Not required *anywhere* in the majority of states for private sales. It has nothing to do with Gun Shows and is a weird obfuscation of a major issue when people insist on bringing them up.
#30 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2021-03-13 10:55 AM"

That's true.
However, since your post specifically referred to sales at gun shows, my post responded in kind. What I posted is true. No weird obfuscation' intended.

"#21

Background checks have always been required for all licensed vendors at gun shows. While an exception probably exists somewhere, all of the major shows require a license to be a vendor.
#25 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2021-03-13 08:09 AM"

As you say, for LICENSED VENDORS. No such background check is required for private sales at gun shows in the majority of states. The very few states that do require background checks of all sales at gun shows can be easily circumvented by a short drive across a neighboring states time and/or a straw purchase by a qualifying individual.

BTW, for the curious (and patient!), here's the Federal laws regarding wiretapping.