<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The U.S. Census Bureau has a handy interactive map, where you can
>track the participation rate anywhere in the country, down to the
>smallest town.
>http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/
>As of today, the national participation rate is 46%.
>However, here's one place where they're doing much better than the
>national average:
>These six counties  are exceeding the national average by quite a bit:
>Stearns: 55%
>Benton: 55%
>Sherburne: 54%
>Wright: 58%
>Anoka: 54%
>Washington: 53%
>That's an average of 55%. They are among the highest reporting
>counties in their state, and their state is among the highest
>reporting in the country.
>Which state is it?
>Heh, he -- it's MINNESOTA.
>And what do those six counties have in common?
>Why, they're none other than Minnesota's 6th Congressional District.
>Home of Michele Bachmann.  You know -- Michelle "Batshit Crazy"
>Bachmann -- the one who urged her constituents to not fill out their
>census forms.

>Of course, she hasn't been saying a whole lot about that lately,
>possibly because Minnesota could be in danger of losing a
>Congressional seat, especially if the state is undercounted:
>State demographer Tom Gillaspy has been warning for months that the
>next census could result in the loss of one congressional seat in
>Minnesota. In fact, he confessed last week that, until the recession
>hit, he was almost resigned to the probability that Minnesotans would
>be allowed to elect only seven U.S. House members from newly drawn
>districts in 2012.
>Luckily for the State of Minnesota--and possibly for Bachmann--the
>people there appear to be civic-minded citizens who are aware of their
>legal obligation to fill out and mail in their forms. Kudos to the
>people of the 6th Congressional District for doing their duty, and not
>listening to their crazy representative. Now maybe they can get around
>to electing somebody who isn't nuts.

<waterboi5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 10:24 am, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:0db3bc92-731e-4bf9-a435-829e61f84a79@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com
>> > Newsmax got this correct,
>> Well, no.
>> The so-called "stand your ground" laws remove the requirement to attempt
>> to flee from an attacker ANYWHERE. The so-called "castle doctrine"
>> allows you to defend yourself in your home or on your property.
>> Besides, the Zimmerman case doesn't (or shouldn't) involve Florida's
>> version of "stand your ground" anyway.
>> If the situation was as Zimmerman's been reported as saying, he had no
>> opportunity to flee, so lethal defense would have been allowed in any case, "stand your ground" or not.
>Good point, on re-reading I see that you are correct, NewsMax
>misrepresented "Stand Your Ground" as being the same as "Castle
>Doctrine" ("also referred to" in the cite) - I thought they were
>treating the two doctrines as similar, but not necessarily the same.
>Dang, Newsmax muffed it again