muff528

Nice spin. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has no spin, no electric charge, or color charge. So there! So Higgs is sitting at the bar having a few pints. When it's time to leave he asks the bartender, "How much do I owe you?". The barkeep says, "For you, no charge!"

I've just started playing with Ubuntu (12.04) on a spare laptop. Not doing anything productive yet ...just learning my way around the OS. Seems a bit slow but that may just be my machine. I will say that wireless drivers are not included in the release (at least for Broadcom) and that forced me to trudge my way through some command line stuff. There's plenty of help online so it wasn't too hard to figure out. It does help if you have a wired connection to start. For the OP, the release does include Firefox browser and Open Office.

Yeah, you might have to wait a couple of hundred years for it to cool off a bit.

Where in Iran are you from. A fraternity brother is from Shiraz. (...and one of my roommates was Pakistani.)

Immigrant grandparents. One from Asturias (northern coastal) Spain One from Messina, Sicily Two from Alessandria della Rocca, Sicily (near Agrigento)

She left a little early but I managed to chase her down and pin her. What a great muff dive! Fabulous! ...but the real fun didn't start until we debriefed!

After some thought I've decided that you are correct. I now agree with you (and Michael Moore) that the "voter ID" debate is equivalent to the "gun debate" (with respect to the notion that an ID should be required to purchase a firearm). I realize that this requirement does not disenfranchise the firearms buyer any more or any less than a voter is disenfranchised by a requirement to show an ID at the poll. Congrats. You have influenced my position on this point. (I'm still not buying the "nasty weather in Boston" argument, though).

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck? Your multiple attempts to deflect the argument to establish some lame equivalence to the gun debate is irrelevant and a waste of bandwidth. Cite. Question - How were the 953 questionable ballots discovered? I don't know ...I'm asking.

You completely miss the point. The integrity of 953 votes was brought into question. (Some of) the ballots were looked at and a determination was made for each questionable ballot. That's all that needs to happen. Voter fraud might be found in some cases and might not in others. I would have hoped that the other 746 questionable ballots would have been inspected. They probably should have verified the "cancelled license" cases too.

What about Al Franken's election? Over 1000 felons voted in that election - against the law. What about 2012 report by the S. Carolina dept of motor vehicles report that found 953 dead people had voted. They also reported that 4965 people had voted in S. Carolina after their S. Carolina driver's license had been cancelled due to their getting an ID in another state. Voter fraud, no problem here folks, keep moving along, nothing to see here... I don't suppose that SC DMV report mentioned anything about dogs and goldfish voting along with the dead folks and the folks who might have voted in multiple states? It would sure help my argument a little.

IDs are required to buy guns. An illegal gun purchase/transfer is just that ...illegal and should be prosecuted.. Ummm - NO. In 33 states you can buy a gun privately with no ID needed, even at a gun show from a private seller. And the gun lobby opposes every attempt to change this. You are right in that I shouldn't have said "IDs are required" but it is implied. To comply with ATF requirements the seller must verify the buyer's State of residence. If the buyer resides out-of-state the transfer must be brokered by a dealer in the buyer's State. It doesn't specifically say to check their ID but if the private seller wants to stay out of trouble they'd better verify somehow. Either way, the seller needs to know who is buying the firearm. Yes, the seller can sell to someone from his State without an ID but if he doesn't know the buyer he might be breaking federal law. Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State? A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

Well, I haven't made any claims ...only disputed someone else's claims. I'm not arguing for a new law. Just enforce the ones we have. My only position is that requiring a photo ID to verify someone's identity at the poll does not constitute "disenfranchisement" although I'll concede that it might rise to the level of "inconvenience". I do realize that it might be a problem for someone to have to deal with that inconvenience once every two years.

How the hell would I know? Nobody checked IDs. But I'd be willing to bet that "none" is the answer for my precinct. They check IDs there. He asked how many voted in the election, not at the polls. That check isn't going to cover absentee. They probably would have had to vote in "person". I doubt that either could get a stamp to stay stuck to the envelope.

How the hell would I know? Nobody checked IDs. But I'd be willing to bet that "none" is the answer for my precinct. They check IDs there.

CLICKY!Even the Republican inspector of elections for Radnor Township said she believes the law is politically motivated! How does she know? Did she check IDs?

IDs are required to buy guns. An illegal gun purchase/transfer is just that ...illegal and should be prosecuted. Do we need more gun laws? "Criminals don't obey the law". Do we need more voter laws? No, we just need to verify that the laws are being followed ...just like the gun laws.

These arguments really are getting ridiculous. Making fake IDs is also illegal. So how do you discover voter fraud? Why make voter fraud illegal if you have no intention of pursuing cases? Lame.

The security was one of the few things he talked about. He was asked whether he thought they were ready and he very blatantly gave indications that they were not. It's like a British diplomat being in the United States for something and being asked if they thought the country was ready and them responding "Well.. you know... There was that spree killing the other day... Guns seem to be far too commonplace.. It's disconcerting." And best believe such a statement would cause a little patriotic riot in the U.S. Well, maybe he does believe they are not ready (even though he did not say that). But the fact is that they are either "ready" or they are not. Nothing Romney says will change it either way. I hope it all goes well.

How do you mean? Because if you want to go back into US history you will find real disenfranchisement ...not just a little inconvenience. Indeed. A poll tax is "just a little inconvenient" for those who can afford it. Voter I.D. is not required everywhere in order to cast a vote at the ballot box. I've never had to show an I.D. to vote. I tell them my name, they look it up and add a check mark and hand me a ballot. I have never had them tell me that I already voted. It wouldn't inconvenience me at all if I had to show an I.D. I would not feel oppressed by a voter I.D. requirement. However, there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced by new voter I.D. requirements, for many reasons. The people who are systematically pushing for new voter I.D. laws around the country know this. They also know that the laws will inconvenience particular demographic groups more than others. They consider most of the people in these groups as "lazy" people. That makes it all O.K. because nobody likes "lazy" people. Apparently they have convinced you that only "lazy" people will be discouraged from voting by the "little inconvenience" of getting a voter I.D. So it seems to me as if you're just fine with the voter I.D. requirement despite the fact that they have admitted that they cannot base the need for it on evidence that in-person voter fraud is taking place to any significant extent. You think it's justified simply because it sounds like a good idea. You say that this isn't "real disenfranchisement". I guess you think that it's perfectly OK to disenfranchise "lazy" people because that's not "real disenfranchisement". One thing that you will notice if you look back into U.S. history is that it used to be a lot easier to disenfranchise groups of people. At various times in the past it was perfectly reasonable to disenfranchise Native Americans, slaves, paupers, people who own no property, people who won't pay a poll tax, and women. Nowadays we all agree that the Constitution guarantees all of those groups the right to vote. But what about "lazy" people? Well, nobody's going to complain about a voter I.D. law which, on it's face, seems like a good idea and only slightly inconveniences "lazy" people. The added bonus, of course, is that most (not all) "lazy" people (defined as those for whom it's a "little inconvenient" to obtain a voter I.D.) just happen to lean Democrat. This is just "real disenfranchisement" by another name. Perhaps we should call it "stealth disenfranchisement". You are saying that "there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced". Presumably these are folks who have lawfully registered to vote but do not have an ID. How did the opponents of the ID requirement arrive at this number? How did they quantitatively determine that "this group" of folks have IDs and "that group" doesn't? I'd like to see how this was determined. Otherwise it is only a number pulled out of someone's ass. As has been mentioned earlier, these legally registered voters who have trouble getting an ID still have the option of using absentee ballots. I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with the disenfranchisement of "groups" of folks who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote and who have lawfully registered. I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple votes, etc. Using the constant claims of racism and disenfranchisement is really getting tiresome and when the real deal happens people are going to be too desensitized to listen.

This isn't an elementary school where "Well look what HEEEE did" is a valid response to justify someone elses failure. Nowhere have I said that Obama is a good president, I merely said that Romney, based on these actions wouldn't be either. In typical Romney flip-flop fashion, he went back against what he originally stated and tried to make it better by saying that England is in fact ready to host the Olympics. At least he is consistently inconsistent. He never said they weren't ready. He only said their security screw-ups were disconcerting. They still are.

How do you keep your desk so neat?

Puh-leeeeze! Romney was specifically asked about his thoughts about the security issues which, splashed all over the news internationally, are no big secret. He did not "raise the issue" of security failures. His response was simply that it was "disconcerting". It is the British immigration and customs union workers who have threatened to strike on the eve of the games. It is the British security contractor that failed to meet its personnel obligations and required the military to step in and fill the gaps. Yes, it is "disconcerting" ...at the very least. By their feigned indignation and ridiculous, childish responses to Romney's comments, those who publicly and vocally take offense are unwittingly and unnecessarily raising the bar for security at the games.

How do you mean? Because if you want to go back into US history you will find real disenfranchisement ...not just a little inconvenience. ETA - I'm not really defending the PA law since I don't know the details. I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker ...something that is already being done across the country. Either we need IDs or we don't. If not, the folks already voting under that system (I am one of them) might be able to someday escape that oppression.

Fair answer. I take that to mean that you either don't believe voter fraud is taking place at all or that there is simply no evidence to support an investigation (or no investigation has revealed any evidence).

Why is there concern over the number (no matter how small) of voters who might be merely inconvenienced, not disenfranchised. but no concern whatsoever over the number (no matter how large) of voters whose votes would be completely negated by fraudulent voters? So far I haven't read any post from any poster on any thread in this forum that suggests a specific solution or legislation (reasonable or otherwise) to the problem of mass shootings. Just platitudes and pontifications. How about something to respond to?