Skins24

On 1/14/2024 at 7:47 PM, China said:

Second-most venomous snake in the world found in toddler’s underwear drawer

 

An Australian snake hunter discovered the second-most venomous snake in the world in a toddler’s underwear drawer.

 

Mark Pelley, based in Melbourne, was asked to remove a 5-foot Eastern brown snake from a 3-year-old’s bedroom.

 

“Mum went to get some clothes for her son and found a large five-foot brown snake instead,” Pelley wrote of the ordeal on Facebook.

 

“We figured out what happened. She carried in folded washing yesterday and as she was taking clothes from [the] clothes line, [the] brown snake crawled into it.”

 

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

On 3/16/2024 at 1:19 PM, China said:

Venomous snake found 'trying to hide among the undies' in bedroom

 

A snake catcher was called out to a home in Queensland, Australia, where the second-most venomous snake in the world was found "literally trying to hide among the undies" in a resident's bedroom.

 

Sunshine Coast Snake Catchers 24/7 posted a video to Facebook showing snake catcher Daniel Rumsey's encounter with a juvenile eastern brown snake in a woman's bedroom.

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

Guess folks in Australia should just stop wearing undies 🤷‍♂️

Don't know if this counts and man oh man I wish I remember what was said - 

Many many moons ago I was riding the metro, some guy was on there high on whatever, and just rambling away to himself. I can't remember what he was saying, I just remember absolutely dying trying not to bust out laughing! They were actual and complete sentences, but I remember the subject matter and arrangement of them had me shaking! Man, I was in tears by the time I got off 😂😂😂

On 4/13/2024 at 9:03 PM, 88Comrade2000 said:

Saw Civil War today, it was just o.k.  It wasn't the type of movie I thought it would be.   So, it gets a C-.

 

It's basically about a group of reporters travels thru a second civil war torn America.   The movie wasn't really about a second civil war but was set in a second civil war. It was about the journalists.

 

 

Saw it and thought it was pretty good. I think not getting into the how and why was a plus.

I thought it was a very realistic portrayal of the attitudes and actions of the populace should something like that ever go down...

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Learn from history from history, or ehats the point of tracking it?

Been thinking about this recently. 

Generally speaking, have we (humanity) truly ever learned from our mistakes? 

Or do we just making the same ones in a different way?

Hopefully Israeli (and U.S.) defense forces do their jobs well. 

As this is less drones/equipment headed to Russia!

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

The way story was told to me (as I was too young when it happened to get it) was everyone knew he was guilty...

 

The question was whether he was going to be the first black man clearly guilty and got off Scott free in our criminal justice system.

 

White people be beating the system all the time, why this first was bittersweet and not just another failure.

 

As I got older and saw him go to jail for something else kinda realized how much an asshole he really was.  But that moment was still an assbackwards leap forward in equality where finally if you have the resources you can beat the system, too, no matter what color you are.

 

I'm pretty sure his wife's family doesn't want to hear that ****, I know I wouldn't.

Yeah, from what I remember this is extremely accurate.

Timing played into it as well, as the scars from the Rodney King riots were still visible (not just talking physically)...

I was in 8th grade, in they gym. The gym teacher rolled out the TV for it. For you youngin's TVs used to be on these cart things 🙂:

The whole thing (the trial and everything surrounding it) was surreal.

Not sure what could grab the whole nation's attention like that ever again - outside of a 9/11 scale/type event.

The chase

The glove

The dancing Itos

15 hours ago, tshile said:

10 mil

No sickness

100 mil over 40 years

 

 

This is the correct answer.

Whenever there is an option to take a lump sum, always do that.

10 mil is enough to set you and your family up for life.

100 mil over 40 years is simply for helping others.

No sickness ensures I keep helping others for as long as I can.

Wow. Just a line in the middle of a diamond...how creative.

For reference:

Jazz it up, sure. Modernize it, ok.

But what is that????

On 4/8/2024 at 7:34 AM, TheGreatBuzz said:

Watched The Accountant last night because I saw they were making a sequel and never saw the original. Holy ****, that was bad! Why are they making a sequel?

Wait, so is this like "bad" as is good?

And, why are they making a sequel because the first was so good?

When looking at it...the paths of the 2017 and 2024 solar eclipses kinda look like the confederate flag when together. We should probably cancel them, just in case...

(...and just so there's no misunderstanding - I'm all for tearing down the statues, getting rid of that flag, etc.)

How can anyone see this and not think it's cool!

The eclipse is happening in April. April is next to May.

This is clearly a sign we'll draft Drake Maye.

On 4/6/2024 at 12:14 PM, Renegade7 said:

Is it jus me or are these east coast earthquakes becoming more frequent?  I don't rememeber this at all as a kid in the 90s.

Had to look this up. East of the Mississippi, there had been 6 notable earthquakes from 1895 to 1995 - 100 years. In the past 29 years from 1995 to present, there have been 6.

My random thought of the day though is....I can't remember the last time I looked through a phone book.

Alright back to douches...

Though the NWS has a very slight chance of very scattered showers on Monday, all the models are currently rain free. Even if we had a pop up shower, it wouldn't last long. I currently think we should still be good in the DMV. Probably won't be 100% sunny for the eclipse, but we should be OK! Lettuce pray 🙏

10 hours ago, The Sisko said:

Not as many, but you know which country also received a boatload of UN resolutions against it? South Africa. Your logic excuses their apartheid government as well. I guess it makes sense though since Israel was happy to arm the apartheid era S. Africans. But then I guess one apartheid state would naturally support another. 

No, not at all excusing anything.

This was in response to the thought that Israel just does whatever and is ignored. 

32 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

So you’re saying a US Senate race isn’t statewide? The Senators we (allegedly) elect aren’t responsible for representing the entire state? Who knew every state only has two districts designated for Senate elections only?🤔

 

Nothing more to see here folks. We’re done. 

When you broke it down by district I automatically went to Rep, as that made more sense (when talking about voting by district.) My bad.

lol, this is a discussion about elections on a message board. Not that serious folks 🙂

Snipe not required.

Still, the comparison still doesn't quite work. First, the fact that there are two. How would that work with electors?

17 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'd like to ask a question without its purpose seeming too much towards making point I've already made, really want to understand evidence and concerns to following point I keep seeing...

 

This idea that cities and costal regions could have a level of power that allows them to completely overrule the needs or concerns of rural areas and interior of the country.

 

What evidence is there towards that in the last 20 years?

 

Is it because one is typically represented by Democrats and the other typically represented by GOP?

 

I've seen Dems propose and pass expanding Rural Broadband access and GOP try to block it and brag about it once it gets passed and installed anyway.

 

Should the push for restricting women's right to choose as we're seeing it now really be looked at as something Cities and coastal areas should not only "understand" but help facilitate because of its support in rural areas?  How many prominently rural states are trying to push for as little exemptions, such as rape or incest, as possible now?

 

If it gets to a point of something so obvious like diverting water resources towards cities and leaving rural areas to whither and die (a potential near future reality with climate change)...I okay, I get it...but is that happening right now?

 

What concerns of rural areas are being blocked or ignored by higher concentrated population centers, or big states refusing to help or address needs of small states?

I think someone mentioned this before,  but we can't look at the right now and think it will always be.

Basic demographics and demographic trends show the urban areas have and would continue to grow in power (in this scenario.) They're addressing the needs of the small states for a while? Great. Is the potential there for them to stop doing so? 

Doesn't matter if they're doing it. Can they?

If yes, are we cool with that? Or are we taking it on good faith that everyone will always look out for each other?

Monarchies worked for thousands of years. We should all just go back to that 🤔

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

My goal is for every voter in the US to have exactly the same voting power. Which the popular vote does.

It would. If we had 300 million less people, equally spread out. But we don't. The problem of the major cities deciding every election would still play out.

I know it's not really the same, but what if I wanted to vote my displeasure on an issue or protest vote. With the current set up (as flawed as it is and I am 100% for changes), at least there would be the potential for my voice to be heard. With a popular vote, my voice drops to zero.

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

As it stands now, a voter in Wyoming has 3.5x the EC voting power as I do in California (or as most of you do, who live in Virginia).

 

So much for a representative democracy. 

Is the goal to have Wyoming with 0 EC voting power?

I don't care, because I don't live in Wyoming 🙂

But that is what the pact would essentially do. It would do that more often then not. Are we ok with that? Are Wyomingians(?) Ok with that?

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

Others have tried, but I’m going to take a stab at it. The irony of your position is that you’re arguing against what you’re arguing for.

Imagine that in statewide elections, say for senate, that each district has electoral votes as is the case nationally. Your district votes heavily in favor of candidate A, who doesn’t receive the majority of votes statewide. Is this district’s vote nullified because the hypothetical electors are required to vote in candidate B? Is it no longer a democracy? In other words, whichever side loses will be in the same position you describe, just without the electoral vote process based on winner take all.

I understand the concept of the sovereignty of the states, and why it exists. However, it creates artificial boundaries that are magnifying the power of some votes to the detriment of others. This solution is actually ingenious in that it uses one of the root causes of the problem to solve the problem. 

The thing is, I'm not arguing for anything.

Your smaller scale example doesn't work as that's not how any of the states vote. The folks in District A don't care who's in District B, because they're not going to represent them. He's not even on the ballot so he can't get more votes statewide.

More in response to Packer:

7 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Here's the deal: I'm not exactly a supporter of popular vote wins the election.  I think my history in this thread through the years backs that up; go back to my post on the first page, and my post on the previous page.  I believe the ideal solution involves increasing the number of representatives so they represent closer to the number of people they used to before the house was arbitrarily capped, and to end gerrymandering.  I also believe states should not be giving all of their votes to whomever won the state, because the state is effectively steamrolling 45% of its people, but if you don't bundle all of your votes together as one, you limit the value courting your state, so it is in the state's best interest to do so.  The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much chance for these to be implemented.  The folks in power are the folks who benefit from the current arrangement, and are the folks who have the authority to change it.

The popular-vote pact, however, does seem a possible goal to reach.  It doesn't require an act of congress to vote against congress-critters' best interests.  It just requires enough states to buy in to achieve the 270 vote threshold.  Not an easy task, but does seem possible.  I'm not down with the argument that this ignores the will of the voters, considering the will of the voters of these states is that the president be elected by popular vote.  And in this case it gives value to all of their voters.  And all voters in the country.  No more is a Democrat in Texas voting in vain, or a Republican in California.  It does diminish the pull of the less populous states, but as the current electoral college stands, their voters get a ludicrously outsized voice allowing for the tyranny of the minority.  If I had to pick between two imperfect systems, I'd rather the one where majority rules than where minority rules.  If those small states don't like it, their Congress-critters can then push for real meaningful reform; like my suggestion of growing the House like in the days of yore.  It still grants the senate bump, but makes it a much smaller, more reasonable bump.

And I for the most part agree with your suggestions of a possible solution! The only problem is that, unfortunately, it would never work. Imagine, in this political climate, trying to pass a bill with 1200 Representatives 😂

It'd be chaotic

The problem with the popular vote pact is that it does not solve the problems of why we don't vote popular vote in the first place.

The majority of the people in those states prefer the president be elected by popular vote? Great. Have those states petition the changes to the constitution. Don't just decide for everyone this is how we'll do things now.

If they get to 270, what happens to all the states that don't want this? Just, tough luck? It'll be the smaller and least populous states, and we circle around to why we're set up the way we are in the first place...

With the EC, if more states went the way of Maine and Nebraska, that'd be great. This pact though, not only keeps the EC, it changes the sole purpose of electors, which is to represent your state.

You say tyranny of the majority is better than the tyranny of the minority (I know I'm exaggerating a bit) but with our current set up, the majority lost their voice a few times. With the majority however, the minority would lose their voice all the time. 

10 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Oh, I didn't realize that this would abolish congress.  Silly me.

Representation applies to the Executive branch too.

When we vote we have electors who are supposed to represent us. 

5 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

For states that have more than 1 district, is it wrong for them to throw all of the state's electoral college votes to the party that won the state's popular vote even if your district voted for someone else?  Isn't it going against the will of the people to have their district throw its vote to somebody that did not win the district?

Meant to talk about this earlier.

Yes, it kind of is. So if we're talking better alternatives - 1 vote per district, majority districts wins.

Ban gerrymandering of course.

11 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

This makes literally every vote count equally as the winner of the popular vote wins the election.

So then this would require a new form of government as we would no longer be a representative democracy.

And this really doesn't solve the problem of the rural areas or small states having a voice. So, does every vote have equal weight?

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

A complete cop out. What a ****ing disappointment.  

Ok buddy 😂

I even asked for your help. Got completely unnecessary attitude in return. Disappointing indeed.