Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

[Sava]

It's ok. I still love you.

will you put neosporin on my dong?

i initially got a fapping injury

but i met someone new and that didn't help

the longest i go between some sort of ejaculatory activity is 2 hrs max
not counting sleep

[-Jrabbit]

Too quick on the trigger with the lame insults there, champ.

Hell, I spent the afternoon on the dentist's chair and I'm drinking myself to slepp while watching Elementary.

Deal.

[Tupac Shakur]

**** you pussytwat
i am tired today

It's ok. I still love you.

[Tupac Shakur]

Not a strawman (well, no more than yours). Again, nice job ignoring the inconvenient portions of my posts.

But I expect nothing less of you.

Too quick on the trigger with the lame insults there, champ.

[Sava]

God Sava, your performance in this thread was so disappointing...

**** you pussytwat
i am tired today

[-Jrabbit]

Not a strawman (well, no more than yours). Again, nice job ignoring the inconvenient portions of my posts.

But I expect nothing less of you.

[Tupac Shakur]

Where "care the most" = "have the greatest dollar value on the line."

Not necessarily. The membership of the NRA, for example, is hardly motivated by monetary interests.

So you're a believer in dollar-value democracy, where "scream the loudest" = "cares the most." Good to know.

You would be a better poster if you took the time you spend constructing strawmen and used it to actually think about the issue at hand.

Most would prefer congresscritters who could actually parse the difference between "funded screeching" and "what most people actually think."

If this were actually true, then why would people keep voting in the same Congressional incumbents who apparently can't tell the difference between what you view as illegitimate expressions of constituent interest and what "people actually think"?

It's clear that most voters like the congresspeople they have (even if they hate Congress as a whole), probably because congresspeople are actually very good at responding to the interests of their constituents.

BTW, nice job picking/choosing the parts of my post that fit your narrative to respond to. Totally appropriate given your POV.

Large sections of your post were either nonsensical or uninteresting. If you want me to respond to these sections with an appropriate response (e.g. "****" or ) in the future, however, I can strive to do so.

[Berzerker]

we got a system of legalized bribery and extortion

[-Jrabbit]

Where "care the most" = "have the greatest dollar value on the line."

So you're a believer in dollar-value democracy, where "scream the loudest" = "cares the most." Good to know.

Most would prefer congresscritters who could actually parse the difference between "funded screeching" and "what most people actually think." BTW, nice job picking/choosing the parts of my post that fit your narrative to respond to. Totally appropriate given your POV.

[Tupac Shakur]

"lobby for regular Joes."

"Regular Joes" have all sorts of lobbies. Who do you think make up the rank and file of labor unions and advocacy groups like the NRA?

The simple fact is, those who scream the loudest, distribute the most money (lobbying, bribes, etc), and who threaten and deliver retribution for slights, are the ones most likely to get their legislative way.

No ****. The point is that all the screaming is ultimately done on the behalf of constituents; why wouldn't congresspeople respond to the constituents who care the most?

[Berzerker]

wasn't there more to that bill people were divided over?

[Tupac Shakur]

So the failure of background checks to pass congress despite 90%-ish approval rating is... the fault of the people who favor these checks, because they're not "effectively organized"?? Nice.

I don't see the need to assign blame in this case unless you're trying to set up a retarded strawman. It's pretty obvious why the NRA got its way while the 90% of the populace who support stricter background checks didn't, though; the members of the NRA care a lot about gun legislation and are very well organized to oppose it, while the vast majority of the 90% doesn't feel strongly about gun legislation and those that do aren't well organized to support it.

[giblets]

In 2005, it finally felt a little better saying you got your information from Wikipedia. In a study in the journal Nature, researchers chose articles from a wide range of topics from both Wikipedia and the knowledge standard-bearer, Encyclopedia Britannica. The experts sent those entries to "relevant" field experts for peer review. The verdict? The journal found eight serious errors in the articles — four from each side. However, they also discovered many more minor factual errors, like omissions and misleading statements — 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica. Even though Britannica pointed to those minor errors as proof it's the more reliable source, Wikipedia took the study as somewhat of a victory after much press criticism over the accuracy of its entries.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042491,00.html

Wow Wikipedia is such a terrible source of information!!!

[Tupac Shakur]

I could quote James Q. Wilson at you, but why waste time on a **** who won't admit when he's wrong?

[kentonio]

You should take your own advice, dumb****...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Congress is a body of elected officials that creates the laws that the federal bureaucracy implements.

What a surprise, another dumb **** who thinks Wikipedia is the font of all human knowledge. At least you're consistently dumb.