livendive

I think he's married. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Their city goals had them getting from 10% in 2010 to 30% in 2016, so 20% in 2013 seems like a reasonable interim goal. http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/environment/renewable-energy Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Assisted suicide, capital punishment, abortion? Yep. (I think the question of whether abortion counts as killing is debatable, but all should be approached with caution regardless) Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I've had one guy who acted like a friend recently call me a jackass and defriend/block me on Facebook, but I don't think this actually cost me a friendship, it just exposed a false one. I've had some lively discussions with some folks, and I'll admit that I treat some like friends who I no longer respect because of their political positions, but such is life. I like the time I spend surrounded by friends who value diversity, equal rights, and liberty; who believe that killing is an unattractive option that should only be exercised with extreme caution; and who can engage in reasonable disagreement with more curiosity than name-calling. I tolerate but rarely enjoy my time around those incapable of such very basic human perspectives. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Everything I've read is that this is going to be exceptionally close, but the popular vote is leaning Romney, and the electoral college vote is leaning Obama. I live in a very Republican area, so seeing Obama/Biden stickers, signs, or pins is rare just on the basis of support. But travelling, maybe Romney supporters are just more likely to express their opinion with bumper stickers? I dunno. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You spend far too much time reading and regurgitating lies for anyone to believe that. If you were honestly interested in the truth, you wouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. Blues, Dave I subscribe to the BlazeTV. The Real News is broadcast M-F and anchored by four regulars and frequently one guest. Two of the anchors also due regular commentary on MSNBC and CNN, according to their bios on Wikipedia. So, who would you recommend for the truth in news? I would start with three considerations: intent, reputation, and corroboration. Intent: In a moment of weakness last weekend, I registered on newsmax.com. During the registration process, you're given the choice to opt out of emails, which I did, however they specify that it'll take 24-48 hours for that opt-out to take effect (a lie in the computer age...the true length of time necessary is measured in microseconds). Not surprisingly, it took the full 48 hours for me to stop receiving emails, and I got several, every one of which was clearly intended in the header that Obama is the anti-Christ and here's how to take him down. Thus newsmax is clearly not intent on informing people, but rather on swaying opinion with propoganda that supports a particular position. Even newsmax referred to Andrew Breitbart as a "conservative activist" for whom they hold affection, and Awr Hawkins, the source of all this nonsense about live video feeds to the White House and circling AC-130's is an employee of breitbart.com and pjmedia.com, it's partner. Thus they can also be discarded as honest sources of information. A simple google search for "Awr Hawkins" will indicate his level of impartiality. Glenn Beck's intent is also to persuade, as evidenced by primary outlet, the proverbial "talk show", which are always confrontational and carry a laughable ratio of fact to opinion. Reputation: If they're generally considered a source of impartial news, they're probably good. This applies in varying degrees though, as most sources have different levels of bias. Still, I would posit that Pulitzer prize winners are almost always more reputable than organizations which have trivial distributions in the mainstream public. Fox News and Huffington Post are clearly biased but still have news aspects separate from their opinion segments, and thus can be considered at least marginally reputable. Understanding that getting the "first scoop" is important to all of these organzations, we have to accept that sometimes early information will be wrong. How they treat those incidents is telling as to their reputation...do they retract inaccurate stories on the basis of better information, or just kind of gloss over those "oops" moments. The entertainment/propoganda types just go for the next big story, whereas the types trying to convey accurate information will generally provide a retraction or clarification, even if it is buried on some backpage. Corroboration: If the AP says something that Reuters and CNN and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times corroborate, there's probably an element of fact to it. If Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow say something and the only other people reporting it are of similarly questionable reputation, it's probably bullshit. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You spend far too much time reading and regurgitating lies for anyone to believe that. If you were honestly interested in the truth, you wouldn't listen to Glenn Beck. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Oh, so now that you can't get his entire government, you want to know whether he personally booked a flight to Benghazi, and are going to scream and yell some more if it turns out he took a shit at 11:09 PM? If you can't accept surrogates, then why have you even moved on to this issue, you should still be crying about the fact that he hasn't personally brought you the original piece of paper his doctor signed 51 years ago instead of accepting that several reputable people and organizations already beat that horse to smithereens. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I've still got piece of crap Vista on my laptop, which I'm suddenly finding myself using all the time for homework. I'd upgrade to Windows 7, like I have on my desktop, but I think I'd end up missing out on some functionality (Sony FW-190 with somewhat unique screen, sony-built card reader, and R/W Blu-Ray with Vegas Pro). I've seen some reviews of Windows 8, and don't see any reason to buy it when the Windows 7 on my desktop does everything I want it to. When that changes, I'll change. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't know. I do know that, despite its unabashed conservative bias, the Washington Times is still one hell of a lot more credible than that dipshit Awr Hawkins, or anyone writing for Newsmax. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And Gov. Christie is catching hell from plenty on the right for remembering that. Meanwhile, the right is giving Obama hell for ignoring that. lol - So they hate him when he does govern (ACA), and they hate him for not governing when they obstruct every single thing he tries. Seems legit. For that matter, Gov Christie does a hell of a lot of "not governing" too. He recently toured Washington State in support of GOP candidates here. That doesn't help his constituents one bit, it was just a chance to play rock star on the other side of the country. Oddly enough, my ballot this election was the first one I've ever submitted that didn't have several Republican votes on it. The reasons are two, Boehner and McConnell. They've proven to me that the GOP no longer gives a shit about this country, they just want power. Obama offered an awful lot of compromise that was flatly rejected, thus in every election where I didn't like either candidate, I just wrote myself in, or if I didn't care, I voted (D). I will not vote for another Republican until the party demonstrates an interest in the greater good for America. I understand that reasonable minds can differ on what is the greater good, but the last couple of years have been well beyond that. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Ron and his crew would have us believe we had AC-130's circling overhead and Obama was watching live video on his TV and then went to bed without sending them any help. The truth, as detailed in the article, is that the DoD provided the drone and began moving troops on the ground, but were not going to put boots in-country in a soverein nation until the state department and the host country were onboard. Thus, additional CIA forces already in country represented the most appropriate response and that's what went. Indeed, one of the guys killed was one of the responders who flew in from Tripoli. The most you could have hoped for from additional response is prevention of the mortar attacks, which came after a 4 hour lull in the action that led folks to believe the situation was resolved, and it was part of a whopping 11 minute skirmish. It seems to me that a CIA driven response with such limited casualties and subsequent fallout was probably the best possible reaction. Anything further likely would have resulted in greater loss of life on both sides and a dicey diplomatic situation. Instead, the locals went after the bad guys a few days later. That's a win in my book, and far better than dropping massive military firepower into a densely populated area. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The truth is liable to result in both political winners and losers. Dems want to give BHO immunity from the truth to prevent him from suffering a political loss. Suppressing the truth is more corrupt than exposing it, and I would argue that it's a worse form of politicization. So do you think the federal government should provide full disclosure to the press of all CIA activities, or just the ones the Republicans lie about? Blues, Dave If I thought that, I would have said that. Nice effort to deflect the blame. Actually it was WH that leaked classified info when BHO's subordinates killed OBL, because that made the boss look good. Now that there is overwhelming, unclassified, public information lies indicating that BHO is either incompetent or lying about the death of 4 Americans, the Dems will make any excuse, including "classified information," to provide cover for him. And what does he say for himself? He won't answer a direct question and promises the investigation will continue until after the election. Politicizing you say? Did you read the fucking articles? They completely disprove all the retarded "Coultered" bullshit that Ron and his lying GOP friends have been spouting on here for the last week. The US government DID respond. One of the guys killed flew in from Tripoli that night. The excuse is NOT "classified information", it's "those tin hat wearing motherfuckers are crazy". There has been a concerted effort by Awr Hawkins and Glen Beck to swiftboat Obama in the last two weeks of the campaign, and they just got knocked on their asses. So keep believing all that crazy shit if you want, because it's not like you were going to vote for Obama either way. But understand that where we previously thought you were just a little paranoid, we now know you're being deliberately dishonest. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The truth is liable to result in both political winners and losers. Dems want to give BHO immunity from the truth to prevent him from suffering a political loss. Suppressing the truth is more corrupt than exposing it, and I would argue that it's a worse form of politicization. So do you think the federal government should provide full disclosure to the press of all CIA activities, or just the ones the Republicans lie about? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So how's he going to encourage all this economic growth he's promising? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Replying to my own post just to post a link to an article that discusses rebuilding with resilience in mind. Lessons from Sandy: Building with Resilience in Mind Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I thought about a long post with math and stuff, then realized we had this conversation in 2008 and 2004, and maybe even in 2001. I think we're just destined to disagree. There are so many sub-elements on which we disagree that the odds of either of us winning the overall argument are infinitesimally small. Still, I hope you have as wonderful an afternoon as a wrong person possibly can. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

were you able to write that with a straight face? California -55 Texas-38 Florida -29 New York-29 You brought up Florida, not me. How much time have Romney and Obama spent courting California, Texas, or New York? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Really? The house is strictly rep by pop. I think that means there will be many more reps representing urban and sub-urban voters than rural ones. These 2000 numbers indicate almost 70% of people live in urban areas of 50,000 or more with most in communities of 200,00 or more. All indications are that concentration has increased since 2000. Although some senators will come from largely rural states, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana just aren't going to rule the day very often. I'm fine with 70% of the population having 70% of the say, and the whole middle of the country would beg to differ with your assertion that Alaska, Wyomning, and Montana would stand along. A President elected by popular vote is no more or less likely to ignore rural voters than current Presidents are to ignore the states they are sure to wine. Why do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? That's a much larger percentage of the population that apparently doesn't matter to EC-advocates. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I honestly couldn't give two shits about political parties. I think their affect on our governance is FAR more negative than positive. I was simply throwing out a back of napkin possibility for maintaining a "state" voice in presidential elections, even though it's clear that it's the populations opinion that is being solicited. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

no - the definition is closest to being the chief executive of a collection of independent states He's selected by millions of shareholders, some of whom get to vote more "loudly" than others. I think the first part is cool, just get rid of the bullhorns. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Right. but population centers have different interests. 3 million people in 1000 square miles who want water will have more control over water than 1 million people in 100,000 square miles. The electoral college recognizes this. In a sense, the election is about playing 51 games on one day, all of which with different weights. I myself do not want to see the rules of the game changed. The separation of powers would prevent such an abuse as you're describing. If a President were to try and cater just to the cities, he'd never get anything through the house or senate. I just think the concept of states electing the President is silly, he's representing the nation. If we want to keep some state control over the process, give each state 1 primary vote, and 6 months before the general election, states start having primaries at a rate of 1 per day, in a random order. If this year's lineup is heavy in the middle of the country for the first half, maybe Santorum gets enough momentum to win the nomination. If it's in the south, maybe Gingrich. But every state would get to nominate one candidate for each party, and the top candidates from each party would face off for a popular vote. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Population centers don't get to vote, people do. Obviously populations centers will get more attention, due to the whole "bang for buck", but Romney is currently close to proving that a popular vote can be won without the big, traditionally (D) cities. It's a natural order of progression. Districts elect their representatives, states elect their senators, and the nation elects its President. So if you want to draw a sports analogy, I'd say that the way the World Series goes is irrelevant. Win some primaries and advance, win enough of them you go to the Super Bowl, a winner takes all match-up. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Democrats make a point of promoting diversity, I really wouldn't use the word "promoting" here. It's more like a 'criminal abuse of what should be a great and noble concept into a patronizing generalization that's completely counter to what should really be an attitude and promotion of equality amongst individuals'. I think the half of my sentence you lopped off was more succinct. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Yeah, we're just not seeing eye to eye. I care in a weird sort of way what our environment will look like in 400 years. I care substantially more what it will look like in my and my daughter's lifetimes. I'd prefer it be comfortably livable. If you prefer living without any sense of responsibility for your actions, there's probably not much I can do to change that. Then again, I'm sure if you find a place becomes uncomfortable, you'll move. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)