Your video, People on a Japanese Gameshow Try to Say Massachusetts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 8 Badge!

Just a couple of points.

While concealed carry is legal in all states, that does not accurately cover the difficulty in getting permits. In many states, the requirements are so dramatic that it is effectively impossible to become certified. For instance, in California you may only be licensed to concealed carry if you can show a reason to need to carry AND get permission from your local sheriff or city police. In addition, one of the cornerstones of CCW is reciprocity, the allowing of other states CCW permits to be recognized in your state. California is one of the 'may carry' states that doesn't allow any other state or country's CCW holders to carry in California. You must be a resident. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island are similar. In fact, in Hawaii and a couple of the others, offices that grant permission have been specifically told by superiors to not issue for any reason.

Secondly, other than suicides, CCW holders are far less likely to commit any sort of crime versus a non-CCW holder. With suicides, having a gun of any type handy is going to make them easier. It should be a win win for hardcore anti-gun people anyway, since they have one less 'gun nut' to worry in their sleep about.

In any case, I am a proud CCW permit holder. I carry every day and have never had need to use it. But if need arose, I would have it available. I don't like all of the whack job laws that I have to put up with in Texas, but at least that one I agree with fully.

This is a great example of what I call the "good luck" school of Massachusetts civil engineering.

Another Truck Hits That Massachusetts Bridge has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.

Another Truck Hits That Massachusetts Bridge has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.

Another Truck Hits That Massachusetts Bridge has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.

Your video, Another Truck Hits That Massachusetts Bridge, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Really? Is that your come back?

But of course it is...what else could it be.

It couldn't be that states like :

Georgia http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-abortion-clinics-follow-law-fetal-remains-/nnJSk/

Indiana http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/indiana-closes-investigation-into-planned-parenthood/34439976

Massachusetts http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/29/healey-mass-planned-parenthood-fully-compliant-with-law/Fc6pYYrY1ONGQvRTEqkWHK/story.html

South Dakota http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/Health-Department-No-Evidence-Of-Fetal-Tissue-Sale-In-State/34668964

...just couldn't find anything

Your willingness to grab on to anything , no matter how full of shit it might be, in the attempt to validate your beliefs makes others not listen to anything you say as you cant be trusted to be honest or maybe you're truly delusional. Either way i fear your opinions will never get much traction up in here.

...Or could it be me dunh, dunh, duh!!

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

Where I come from, it is pretty common in an older married couple for a husband to refer to his wife as "mom". He sounds like he's from Massachusetts to me, dunno if that convention is common there or not.

As for the seat belt, he's a large guy sitting in the back seat of a vehicle, where the width between belt and buckle can be pretty narrow. Could be that when he sat down with plenty of slack he could get the thing buckled, but then after riding the belt ratcheted down on him to such an extent that it placed him over the buckle so he can't just easily unbuckle it. The retractor that keeps the belt tight in modern cars often seems very overzealous to me, often making it hard to pull out some slack even when the car is parked and turned off.

...So, maybe you're right and the guy is just dumb as a post. To me, it sounded like a slightly grumpy/annoyed dude stuck under a seat belt that had locked in a very tight configuration that didn't allow for much movement. A situation made worse (to him) because it sounded to me like he didn't want to be in the car at all and the person who I interpreted to be his wife probably ordered him to wear his seat belt when he would have to just go without...

I dunno. I could certainly be wrong.

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

Don't worry the ACLU fixed that shit.

"After the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm of Fish & Richardson came to Hurley’s defense, the town agreed to compensate him for what was done. The town has also agreed to train administrators and teachers about teachers’ rights to speak as citizens outside of school.
...
Hurley’s records with the school district will no longer have any mention of his firing and he will receive positive references if and when he applies for another teaching position. The training for administrators and teachers — focused on free speech issues — will begin this August."

It's sad that lawyers so often have to be involved to correct heavy handed zealots in positions of power. But it's good to see there are a lot of victories for the protection of free speech, and this was one of them.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/23/substitute-teacher-fired-for-his-music-video-mocking-religion-finally-gets-some-justice/

Vermont and New Hampshire have been on a spree lately. Today I live in Massachusetts, but I am thinking to move there any day now because of their recent legislation.

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.