http://www.avclub.com/users/fluttershy,80846

Probably the best sock I've ever seen on any forum ever, including The Professor (of course unless you watch the show you won't read the comments in Fluttershy's voice in which case it doesn't work.)

As much as I'm loathe to encourage your MLP thing, that is a pretty amazing sock

What's 'the AV Club'?

It's The Onion's sister site, dedicated to media news and reviews. Lots of music, movie and TV reviews, best/worst of lists, some interviews, some articles speculating on rumors about upcoming movies or TV series twists, etc. The reviews aren't always accurate, but the comments are almost always worth reading, very rare.

The best thing about the comments is even the socks and gimmick accounts work. They have a lot of accounts named after fictional characters that post commentary in the style of that character, like Fluttershy and Cookie Monster. I know that sounds lame and if almost any other site had it, it'd be unfunny beyond words, but on the AV Club it usually works.

Reposted a7x Fan <3

+1.  I can spend hours reading the AV Club's comment section.  It's truly amazing how much of it is brilliant and how little of it is awful, at least my internet standards.

In WalkScore's defense, it's really hard to compile giant databases of grocery stores and distinguish what's a grocery store versus a mini-mart.  It's not like there's a preexisting, current, precise list of every grocery store in the U.S.

My current apartment in Tacoma is an 86, and my soon-to-be house in Seattle is a 72.

Yet another reason not to support Clinton. This sort of open chicken-littling is very suspicious, isn't it?

No, I just think some Republicans are freaked out by the current polling.  I really doubt they have some secret, widely-distributed insight that we don't.  Nine times out of ten (at least) they do not when it's an individual speaking, let alone an amorphous body of anonymous sources.

[KingSweden]

Oh, also:

1. I totally didn't mean to rip off what you said, Sbane, I didn't see your post first I think you're incredibly spot-on, especially for just visiting the error.

2. Welcome to the forum, KingSweden!

I think this is a good basic summary.  I have some kind of OCD nitpicks.

* I would say Spokane is pretty strongly Democratic; the county is split, because it's outvoted by Spokane Valley and the exurban rural areas, but the city rarely votes Republican.

* East Wenatchee is actually a little less Hispanic than Wenatchee, and both are heavily white.  It would take a hell of a lot of Hispanic activation to make that district competitive for Hastings.  Democrats can't even do decently in the least white legislative district here (South Yakima/Columbia River), which Obama even won in 2008.

* Tacoma was actually more in WA-6 before redistricting, as far as I remember.

* Bellevue may be less Democratic than Federal Way when it comes to incumbents (more soft Democrats), but it's definitely not "moderate-to-conservative."  Obama lost some ground last year, but only because in he did exceptionally well among the rich in 2008.  Bellevue's minority population is growing and upper middle class whites aren't exactly returning to the GOP in even 2004-level numbers.  Bellevue will probably always lean conservative on non-populist fiscal issues (like income tax), but that's about it at this point.

Not a correction, but FYI:  Federal Way has some modestly Republican areas, but it has a relatively high working-class and minority population, especially in the multi-unit housing (which it has a lot of.)  It's more GOP now than Bellevue mostly because the Republican Party hasn't collapsed among working-class whites the way it has among upper-middle-class ones.  However, the GOP would keep losing a few percentage points a year here based on demographic trends alone.

Interesting idea.

Masculine 78%
Feminine 51%
Androgynous/Neutral 54%

+1 to the rejection of the advice about not having girls as friends.  That's only good advice if you suck at being assertive, chronically go with the path of least resistance, and/or resent it when the relationships you foster end up platonic.  I think all 3 of those are bad things.

Also, I can't imagine anything good coming from these threads unless I was a Google-savvy employer.

[I mean, for anyone who didn't already fall into the 90-95% with DMV records, that baby would have an 18-year-stale mailing address by the time she was eligible.]

So, do you think it would be possible in the US if the government sets up a centralized database in which all hospitals register every newborn baby in the US automatically to vote ?

I mean, for anyone who didn't already fall into the 90-95% with DMV records, that baby would have an 18-year-stale mailing address by the time she was eligible.

But automatic voter registration based on public records in a vote-by-mail state would be pretty awesome.

Of course, but there could be some provision that parents notify the government agency of an address change or face a penalty.

Isn't that the law in CA already, that drivers have to inform the DMV within a certain period if they move to another address ?

I think the law about reporting change of address exists in most states (I may be wrong) but it's not enforced.  People would freak out if it was seriously enforced.  People would also freak out if you required them to report when their children changed address for the sake of voter registration.  Introducing major additional bureaucracy/cost would make universal registration a losing issue pretty much instantly, I think.

How about an encrypted hash key of their DNA for identification?

I'M ON BOARD!

[I mean, for anyone who didn't already fall into the 90-95% with DMV records, that baby would have an 18-year-stale mailing address by the time she was eligible.]

So, do you think it would be possible in the US if the government sets up a centralized database in which all hospitals register every newborn baby in the US automatically to vote ?

I mean, for anyone who didn't already fall into the 90-95% with DMV records, that baby would have an 18-year-stale mailing address by the time she was eligible.

But automatic voter registration based on public records in a vote-by-mail state would be pretty awesome.

Of course, but there could be some provision that parents notify the government agency of an address change or face a penalty.

Isn't that the law in CA already, that drivers have to inform the DMV within a certain period if they move to another address ?

I think the law about reporting change of address exists in most states (I may be wrong) but it's not enforced.  People would freak out if it was seriously enforced.  People would also freak out if you required them to report when their children changed address for the sake of voter registration.  Introducing major additional bureaucracy/cost would make universal registration a losing issue pretty much instantly, I think.

So, do you think it would be possible in the US if the government sets up a centralized database in which all hospitals register every newborn baby in the US automatically to vote ?

I mean, for anyone who didn't already fall into the 90-95% with DMV records, that baby would have an 18-year-stale mailing address by the time she was eligible.

But automatic voter registration based on public records in a vote-by-mail state would be pretty awesome.

We all know, but for those out of state lurkers, former two-term governor and physician-assisted suicide advocate, Booth Gardner died at 76 on the 15th. He was one of Washington's most popular governors and will be missed. RIP.

Here's an article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/booth-gardner-dies-at-76-ex-washington-governor.html

I got to have lunch with him in January.  He's been non-communicative for a while, but you could tell he still had his mental faculties.  Terrible disease, Parkinson's

Care to name 5 prospective neighborhoods?

Affordable, vibrant neighborhoods?  Sure.  Admittedly I don't know a ton by name from memory.  Sunnyside in Queens.  Hawthorne in Portland.  Quite a few neighborhoods in Chicago.  Tons of neighborhoods in "second-tier" cities like Philadelphia, Raleigh, whatever.  It's really not that unfathomable to find a two-bedroom apartment in a walkable, non-stabby area of a major city for $1,500/mo., which is about what I pay in freaking Tacoma, Washington.  If you have a kid you want to school or live alone, it's a hell of a lot tougher, but highly walkable neighborhoods go for about $200/month more on a one-bedroom.  That's a premium but, if you expenses are fairly low, it's not that stupefying.  I haven't looked into them a ton, but I imagine I could find comparable places in nearly every major U.S. city, excluding San Francisco and Honolulu and maybe a few others (San Diego?).   I'm not an expert on this subject, but I have seen the listings.  I'm not clear on what part of this you doubt...

Unless you're into some really sparse, really rural, or really affluent-religiousy-suburbs areas, I can't imagine answering this anything but >80% D.  Anyone who can half-tolerate city living should obviously be choosing >80% D, since most of America's most vibrant urban core communities are easily >80% D.

The >80% D urban neighborhoods are either dumpster fires or studios that rent for several thousand per month. Not exactly inviting either.

I think you're limiting your scope of analysis a little too heavily to Manhattan and Memphis.  Pretty much all of the interesting neighborhoods (even the ones that aren't super-rich) in the better big cities of the U.S. are over 80% Democratic.  In fact, the only places in Seattle where Obama didn't break 80% were either suburban or full of rich old people in condos.  Cosmopolitan urban neighborhoods in the North -- even relatively affordable ones -- just don't have many Republicans anymore.

Seattle isn't exactly cheap. And you won't find nearly as many non-ghetto >80% D  away from the Left Coast. Although the sizes of each vary from city to city, there's usually have the ghetto areas (>90% D), the hipster/gay/university/alternative area (>70% D), and the old fashioned white working class area, which is frequently ethnic and in declining numbers (>50% D). There may also be some quasi-suburban GOP areas depending on how the city limits are defined. My point was more that 80% is a very high threshold. Seattle is much more of a special case than is Memphis.

I know all of Seattle is fairly expensive, but my point was that there are tons of neighborhoods across the country that are >80% D and neither "dumpster fires or studios that rent for several thousand per month."  And those areas tend to be the sort of places I'd want to live.  In fact, I doubt my top 25 prospective neighborhoods include many places under 80% Obama, and possibly none under 70%.

Unless you're into some really sparse, really rural, or really affluent-religiousy-suburbs areas, I can't imagine answering this anything but >80% D.  Anyone who can half-tolerate city living should obviously be choosing >80% D, since most of America's most vibrant urban core communities are easily >80% D.

The >80% D urban neighborhoods are either dumpster fires or studios that rent for several thousand per month. Not exactly inviting either.

I think you're limiting your scope of analysis a little too heavily to Manhattan and Memphis.  Pretty much all of the interesting neighborhoods (even the ones that aren't super-rich) in the better big cities of the U.S. are over 80% Democratic.  In fact, the only places in Seattle where Obama didn't break 80% were either suburban or full of rich old people in condos.  Cosmopolitan urban neighborhoods in the North -- even relatively affordable ones -- just don't have many Republicans anymore.

Unless you're into some really sparse, really rural, or really affluent-religiousy-suburbs areas, I can't imagine answering this anything but >80% D.  Anyone who can half-tolerate city living should obviously be choosing >80% D, since most of America's most vibrant urban core communities are easily >80% D.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of voters who claim to support civil unions seem unwilling to actually vote for them.

I get the impression (maybe incorrectly) that a lot of the "libertarian" angle to states like WY and AK is less about categorical rejection of government aid, but more about resentment that government is ubiquitous, bulky, inefficient, and intrusive in giving that aid and otherwise involving itself.

Basically, those states aren't so much anti-government on principle as they think that government is poorly-run and unwieldy.  Is that accurate from what you guys have experienced?

"Lean Democrat"/"Lean Republican" isn't usually a self-description.  It's a result of people who identify as independent/unaffiliated being asked about which party they tend to prefer.  That's why independents fare so poorly -- they're cut down to only people without partisan membership or leans.

Paul didn't vote for cloture, but voted to confirm Hagel.

How often does someone do that, vote against cloture, but *for* the underlying bill or nomination?  Can't say I understand the logic of doing that.  I can understand the logic of doing the reverse, saying that you don't support something, but think it should have an up or down vote regardless.  But the other way around confuses me.

I guess you could see an argument voting against cloture because it is inappropriate to address the subject, but feel that you can stake a Yes/No vote if that objection is overruled by popular opinion.  It's tenuous, but whatever, so is Paul.

I'd give it a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being how you won't respond to this after several promises to.

I openly and aggresively support civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Still waiting, after several weeks, on your rationale why.

Do you consider The Olive Garden to be a
quality source of authentic ethnic food, or not?
Yes.................................................................. 39%
No ................................................................... 44%
Not sure .......................................................... 17%

The question made me lol

If you look at the crosstabs, Republicans consider Olive Garden to be a quality source of authentic ethnic food while Democrats don't.

By tiny, tiny margins, and there's not much difference in attitudes toward fast food either.  Interesting.

I don't know.  Neither do you, and I'm not the one who made this topic before thinking of, or dishonestly ignoring, the possibility.

it is not up to the infracted poster to dream up justifications for his received punishment.

That makes no sense as a rebuttal.  BRTD challenged the consistency of the infraction relative to other non-infracted posts.  I said that total inter-post consistency was an unreasonable standard, and his presumption it was met before an infraction was issued is baseless.  I did not say it was not up to the moderator to explain why a post was infracted.  That is a very different concept.  Please take more than 30 seconds to think about whether your "rebuttal" at all follows from what you're "rebutting," because this is like the fifth time I've had to waste my time responding to an obvious strawman from you.  I know that might be hard, but you can use all that energy you're saving by not capitalizing your sentences!

Perhaps, but this is in the same thread.

Would you believe that it's possible to not read every post in a thread?  Is that not something you've ever done?

Is that what was happening here?

I don't know.  Neither do you, and I'm not the one who made this topic before thinking of, or dishonestly ignoring, the possibility.