It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.

The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.

Within a city, I would guess that the correlation between poverty and race is a factor. No stats on this, but I would expect areas with poorer residents to have fewer funds to pay for voting booth. There are a lot of possible confounding variables though.

I despise early voting, but targeted elimination of the practice is at least suspicious. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever offered it on any weekend, since government usually doesn't operate on those days.

As far as reasons for density affecting voting times, I don't know. I would hazard a guess about having less space to work with in the first place. I don't know that there really is such an association, I really just wanted to note that your response wasn't relevant to what gtall had suggested. It's probably worth looking into.

"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.

That link does not disagree with gtall's basic point. Assuming for the sake of arguments that longer voting times are caused by a higher population density and that blacks are disproportionately concentrated in high density areas, the racial disparity in voting times is likely a side affect of population density rather evidence of racism. The numbers at the end of your link even show the disparity base on number of voters.

You can't use a nationwide average to dispute an argument based on clustering. Simpson's paradox is a bitch. Anyone who doesn't understand it in principle if not by name is incompetent to make arguments using statistics. That seems to be a strong majority of the people actually making such arguments, but I stand by the assertion.

Not putting your stamp of approval on a couple is a non-action. Non-actions remain non-actions no matter how much some people want certain actions to occur to their benefit, and non-actions have no impact on anyone (their status before and after is identical). Government marriage rules are an explicit stamp of societal approval on whatever arrangements are included. As such, they are a matter of equal privileges not equal rights. The 14th amendment is still relevant in any case, it's only the rhetoric that many gay marriage supporters use that I object to, such as your comment here.

I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Since I can't have that, I'll support gay marriage.

It allows other private entities to provide whatever information they see fit, because they are also protected by it.

Maybe sugar has healing properties? It actually seems a little plausible to me that adding some simple sugars to your digestive system might help your gut out.

The Harvard study they relied on? It's crap. Note that even your link only claimed 57%. I would dispute whether that qualifies as a VAST majority.

The self reported figure from the study came in at 29%, which is probably a better number. The 62%, and even the 57% in your link rely on a very broad definition of medical bankruptcy. Some with $500,000 in other debt and $5,001 in medical debt shouldn't really count as a medical bankruptcy.

I still consider my links to be valid examples of getting a gaming rig for less than the cost of a mac.

Since newegg combos are subject to link rot, for anyone reading this, the links were for a case, power supply, hard drive, motherboard, ram, processor combo. One was an A8 chip and the other was an A10.

It doesn't have notepad, and you have to set up an account to add it? That's crappy. I haven't used it enough to run into that, and I refuse to set up a microsoft account for a desktop computer.

I'm starting to think window 8, 8.1, and 9 should be relabled as Metro 1, 2, and 3. IIRC, the original windows didn't really take off until version 3. I can't really think of a Microsoft OS that didn't take a few iterations to get right.

1/3 is overstating the case. A lot of it is because Macs all include hardware that I couldn't care less about.

Let's take their cheapest offering, the $599 mac mini. Intel i5 2.5 ghz dual core, 500 GB hard drive, Intel HD graphics, 4 GB ram. This combo from newegg has better graphics (caveat: not familiar enough with intel HD graphics to be certain on this point, but I'd bet it's at least comparable), better hard drive, better processor for $303. Call it $403 once you add windows, so about 2/3. That's not necessarily the best one to use for comparison, just the first I came to. This one for instance is another $100, with a better processor and builtin graphics. If you don't think that qualifies as a gaming rig, throw on an actual graphics card to either combo and disable the onboard video.Might not be top end, but it should cover your gaming needs.

Ok, granted the grabbing hand is a clue. So there is a clue that you can grab it, if you are despearately moving the mouse around and watching to see if it changes. Still not sure it qualifies for the term title bar though. No visible bar, and IIRC no title present.

Honestly, the deficit was almost entirely a creation of the recession. There is no evidence that anything the federal government has done actually improved or worsened the overall economic situation. Whatever models they might use, the comparison of actual unemployment rates to their projections with and without the stimulus proves that their models are wrong. I suspect the stimulus and TARP actually slowed the rate of recovery, but it's not actually provable without an alternate reality to check it against.

It's almost always wrong to responsibility for the state of the economy to the president. Party in control of congress is generally a better target, with caveats.

I would take issue with your description of deregulation as the cause, but it's a long discussion. It's not worth the effort at this point in time, so I'll just note that what you said is a vast simplification. Trying to determine the causes seems to be a bit of a rorshach test.