livendive

I'd say a spelling bee is more of a sport than poker. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Dictatorship? Fucking please... do you always overdramatize this much? While it is an exaggeration, it's not grossly so. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

yhugglopeds cvb?" ew "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Are you playing your love games? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

match.com? I thought he was trying to get himself into this video. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I bet it'd have all the makings of a good song the following year. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Ha ha ha!!! Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Works for me! See you out at LP this weekend? I'll be there Friday night to Sunday night. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't recall anyone asking. I think someone volunteered you over in the LP thread. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

There is one reality TV show I like...Amazing Race. I suppose it's because it's a skill/performance based contest rather a popularity contest like Survivor or Big Brother. Still, I haven't had the time/motivation to actually watch it in at least 3 years. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Last night there was a commercial on that said they're down to three contestants. My thought was "Thank god...that means it's almost over for the year!" Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'd have to try to frame-grab off the video for a shot. On a climbing day when my daughter was 11 or so, she got about halfway up a route and backed herself into a corner with only a challenging move out. She made the move, got herself stabilized, said, "Huh...my hand is bleeding" and then kept climbing. It was cool to see her just move on without whining. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You two are a fantastic example of how a lifelong couple should interact. When I grow up, I wanna be like John. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I suspect that some diseases aren't detectable in the blood for awhile (possibly up to a year), e.g. if they're not testing for a virus, but rather the antibodies to the virus, they have to give your body time to form those. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You forgot "We don't take kindly to folks doing the speed limit 'round here. 10 under, in the passing lane...that's where it's at." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think it was "All the sugar and twice the caffeine", but I agree, it tasted terrible. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And they do, through the electors - guaranteeing that the West Virginia vote counts, even if it's skewed so that those poor Californians only get 18x the influence over the election than the West Virginians. Is it a perfect system? No. Is a straight popular vote better? No, in my opinion. In a straight popular vote, each Californian will have exactly the same influence on the election as each West Virginian, as it should be. Neither is better or wiser than the other, so why shouldn't they be counted equally? Maybe we could institute a different geographical line...those people that live within 100 miles of Washington DC get 5 votes, those within 500 get 4, those within 1000 get 3, 2000 get 2, and 4000 get 1. Fuck Alaska and Hawaii. Sound absurd? State lines have become that arbitrary. The electoral college served a great purpose when a much larger percentage of the population couldn't read, and dissemination of information was slow and unreliable. Today, essentially everyone in the US has access to the internet and/or a phone and/or mail service and/or television and/or radio and/or newspapers. With the exception of a few counties in Florida, most people are perfectly capable of either visiting a voting center or voting by absentee ballot. As such, there's no need for a panel of "more educated" voters to communicate their wishes to Congress. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Will everyone that has at&t, cingular, dsl, and dish networks please call and cancel services. I would if I had any of those. I've got US Cellular (cell), Qwest (land line), and Charter (cable & internet). Thankfully, these only cost me a little over $300/month, without any mobile internet service. I'm considering switching to Verizon cellular so I can get email through my phone (my laptop will still be useless except at home)...it appears that would drive it up by $50/month. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It still gives the smaller states SOME influence in an election. Yeah...MORE influence than their population merits. Why should a West Virginian's vote count for more than a Texan's? As I explained above, districts have representatives, states have senators (and governors in constitutional matters), the PEOPLE should control the Presidency. It's still more fair than a straight popular vote...where the smaller states basically are swallowed up by the "Big 11". And yes, we *do* know who would benefit by a straight vote and who would decide elections by a straight vote ... the Democrats and the blue states, respectively. That's why I feel that the overwhelming amount of the sturm und drang of the "Abolish the EC" movement is coming from the Democrats. How do you figure? I know the doom and gloom approach is attractive and probably sells well, but in the last century, exactly ONE election would have gone differently using a popular vote instead of the EC system, and nobody can prove whether we'd have been more fucked or less fucked with that guy at the helm. Given that Congress was controlled by the opposing party, he'd have probably been as ineffective as our current guy is this term. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Right now, if a candidate takes the "Big 11" states by even a 51-49 margin, he wins the election. Period. In a popular vote, winning a landslide 70-30 in those "Big 11" states would still allow the loser of that margin to combine his 30% of "Big 11" votes with those he wins in the other 39 states and potentially take the election without winning any of the "big" states. That's why I think if any changes are made to the EC, it should be a proportional electoral vote change, rather than the 'all or nothing'... At which point the benefit of the EC over a straight popular vote would be what? I think I see the rationale here...since the smaller states with only 3 EC votes can't divide them perfectly, they would almost always be split 2-1, giving 66% of their votes to one guy even if he only wins 51% of the vote, and only 33% to the guy who won 49% of the vote. However 55 votes (California) are much easier to divide, thus the loser would get much closer to his share of the EC votes. We all know who's favor such a system would usually work in. A straight popular vote would be much fairer, and wouldn't change the outcome of all that many elections. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

In the mid 1990's, I had AT&T for my cell phone, my home phone, a long distance card, and internet access...then their service went to fuck all. I haven't done business with them in any regard since, and I intend to keep it that way. On the plus side, the phone call cancelling everything was fun, with the sales guy trying to keep me and getting to experience the futility of working with the billing folks in the process. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want. If memory serves correctly, our current President won the popular vote in 2004. Will a bit of fact-checking show that he won Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Right now, if a candidate takes the "Big 11" states by even a 51-49 margin, he wins the election. Period. In a popular vote, winning a landslide 70-30 in those "Big 11" states would still allow the loser of that margin to combine his 30% of "Big 11" votes with those he wins in the other 39 states and potentially take the election without winning any of the "big" states. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

An individual voting in a smaller state controls a greater percentage of an electoral vote than an individual voting in a larger state. Let's separate these into two scenarios. One - "Eleven states is all it takes" and "The other situation is that voters in the rest of the country are screwed by the will of those 11 states." Isn't that already the case? All a candidate has to do is eke out California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina, at which point the opposing voters in those states and all voters in the other states are screwed...that's the Presidency. The proposed law might actually fix that, and it certainly won't exasperate it. Two - "Voters of those 11 states may be screwed by the will of the rest of the country." Currently that is possible on a state by state basis (California may be screwed by the rest of the country) but not collectively (those eleven states can't be screwed en masse, as they have the votes to beat the rest of the country). Under the proposed compact it becomes possible collectively, but only if a candidate wins the popular vote. This means that in order to win an election, a candidate will need to appeal to a plurality or majority of the people, as opposed to just certain select states. Campaigning in California won't necessarily win him California's electoral votes, as he's got to win the popular vote. As the chief executive of the union, preferably unbeholden to any particular state or set of states, I think it's good for him to have to campaign on a national platform. On a smaller to bigger scale, the House represents the smallest geographical areas and population bases...voting districts. The Senate represents bigger geographical areas and populations...entire states. The President represents the biggest geographical area and population...the entire collection of states and each sub-division thereof. For that reason, I think he should be elected by his constituency...the entire population. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Some people appear to be flying, others appear to be falling, all very close to the ground. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)