tvashtarkatena

I manned a polling place during the 2004 election for our get out the vote efforts. At around 5:00 there was the predictable after-work rush to vote: the place was packed. All the voting booths were full, so people just voted by filling in their ballots wherever: the floor, wall, etc. There was no bottleneck. Had electronic voting machines been in use, there would have been a huge bottleneck, and many folks might have left without voting after a long wait (as in what happened in Ohio). I realized then and there that this is a much bigger problem with electronic voting than hacking: the controlling of voter turnout in certain key precincts by controlling the number of machines alotted to those districts. For example, some key (democratic) precincts in Ohio had as few as 2 working (there were many 'malfunctions') voting machines, an incredible and unnecessary restriction on the process. It worked: many voters left after too long a wait in those precincts. Paper ballots, counted by machine, are where it's at. No bottlneck, same efficiency and benefit of electronic data collection. Voting machines, due to the ease with which they can be manipulated to restrict or corrupt the voting process, should be banned.

OK. Sorry Minx.

Cloned again.

I wouldn't worry about a few degrees above freezing. Those were the conditions last weekend, and the ice at Rambles Right and Marble Canyon was in excellent condition.

Heh heh. I crack myself up.

Go ahead, twist the knife, ya bastid.

These are the plastic tubes that come with this ice screw. A lot of folks don't use them, but I kind of like them. If you've got some laying around, I'll put them to use.

She can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never never never let me forget I'm her cleanin man....

embroideringhunks.com

More of your fictions!

No, he got an early-retirement package from Fisher-Price because his designs "just weren't advanced enough" I invented Chunky Little People.

Heart monitors, as in hospital equipment, not heart rate monitors, you idiot.

It's easy when the target provides the ammo.

1) Candidates are often vague on positions so they can "adjust" them as is expedient, or just keep them hidden to avoid being attacked. 2) Candidates in primaries are trying different tactics/messages out to see how they "resonate". Like Hillary "finding her voice" at the last minute. 3) the "real story" is the "horse race", and any shockers/surprises that come up (dirty politics) during campaigning. The "Horse Race" is what is covered today. It is the opposite of the real story: it's the product that is packaged for ready consumption for people who do not have the capacity to understand a candidate with any real depth. Essentially, it's a string of largely meaningless events that nonetheless have enough entertainment value to ignite a slow news day. The real story is a candidate's record, philosophy, and character. This does come up, but rarely with any depth.

George Constanza's running now?

I only ever wanted to be a lolcat. It's funny when I look at a thread for the first time and find that I've already been a 'participant' for several pages. Regardless of topic, Scratchy and Monkey never fail to mention me in their posts. It seems like a form of worship. Well, at least the ferrets are largely confine themselves to south of the spray line and leave the climbing section to practitioners.

Polarization filters out trees? Kidding....

I'm sick of them. Please ban me.

Perhaps all the camera lenses are polarized? Never claimed to have you on ignore. You imagined it. I just suggested Mattp do so if he wanted a decent discussion. Considering your typical poor showing on that thread, I'd wager I was on the mark.

"Time for your deep cavity exam, America!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!! I'm gettin' some fudge!!!" Um, yeah, we kinda got that from the pic.

Barring natural events, the White House sets much of the national news agenda. The Press Secretary tells journalists what's important, they 'analyse' and print it. Much of the language journalists use (the 'surge', 'waterboarding', etc) is cast by the White House. Overall, this country would do much better with a very weak federal government and much less power and focus concentrated in the Oval Office. Sure, some states would suck more than others (as they do now) but a strong presidency has not served us well and does not provide enough political diversity (on the contrary, it quelches policy experimentation) to move use into the future effectively. If the President's an idiot, we're all forced into idiocy during his term. Not a good system. Even with a weak presidency, the Judiciary and Constitution would still be there to make sure a state government didn't go too crazy.

Margaret Thatcher strapped to a rocket sled?

I grabbed some melted butter out of the microwave too quickly last night and got the mark of the baste.

your condscension cracks me up you lovable fat cunt You misspelled something, Professor. Now, about refraction....