Sarnoff

Members
  • Content count

    15,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

617 Excellent

About Sarnoff

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

15,784 profile views
  1. exhaust from a car Taping a bag around one's head.
  2. Hollywood Reporter
  3. Weird thing struck me yesterday at a restaurant. They had little cards on the table saying "Water by request only" as part of a county-wide water saving initiative. On the one hand, yeah, I get it... not pouring thousands of unused glasses of water a day would certainly reduce usage. However, thinking about it some more... would this unused water really be "wasted"? I mean, if it's not drank, it just gets poured down the sink. Presumably to be reclaimed. So, really, this effort doesn't really "save" any water, does it? Or am I missing something?
  4. Volek to Bennett lead me to fantasy greatness First ballot HOF
  5. El Nino this fall should fix things up. OK, not really, since we don't have a way to collect it all. Oh well. CA's water can't support the population. Only recourse is to reduce the population, which I fully support by any means necessary.
  6. If he "fishtailed" into Ward, he must have been turning the wheel to avoid him, right?
  7. You've made a bunch of posts in this thread without knowing this? Good grief, watch Cars - Pixar will teach you dirt track racing. Damn it all. It's so laughably typical Tim.
  8. I could buy this. View obstructed by the car in front, dark, suddenly there's a person on the track moving toward you... One might accelerate to get past the person before the person moves in front completely. Maybe the dirt track caused him to fishtail when he did it. It's not like hitting the brakes at that speed would have helped any, and could have caused an even greater loss of control.
  9. Those are three tricks, Copernicus.
  10. More drama-queen hyperbole on your part? Check. 31 credible incidents out of a billion votes cast? And yet it continues to be a pressing issue, pushed by conservatives in every swing electoral state? What's the rationale, if Clifford is incorrect about this?Regardless of whichever study is correct, whether there have been 30 incidents or 30,000, if there exists a better system with fewer cracks to exploit, we should use it to prevent issues in the future.It's like discovering a bug in a website, you report it and patch it, because even if it was exploited only a couple of times before, once the word is out on how to do it, you want to stop future incidents. It's closing the barn doors before the horses leave. And if you get to keep those "other people" from voting then all the better. Look, I've already proposed answers that don't disenfranchise any eligible voter. So don't pin motives on me I do not have. It seems to me all the left wants to do is keep open avenues of fraud. I don't get why we have to keep an antiquated system of better ones exist. And I don't get the rationale behind waiting for a disaster before plugging a few small holes. This country is getting more divided and the people more fervent in their allegiance to political parties. Even if fraud hasn't been a huge problem in the past, I see no reason not to think some wackjobs might coordinate efforts in the future to spoil an election. I don't get why is a bad thing to make simple improvements now, before there's a problem, to protect the integrity of democracy. I guess you just don't believe in that. I would buy that coming from you. So you oppose the recent efforts to use voter id laws to simply disenfranchise any eligible voter possible? While you are open to the idea as part of a larger modernization effort? Why don't you try reading my posts before you accuse me of positions I do not have. So is that a "no"? You're just a one-trick pony, you jump into every thread with your slanted agenda without even considering what's going on. It's useless. And so are you.
  11. More drama-queen hyperbole on your part? Check. 31 credible incidents out of a billion votes cast? And yet it continues to be a pressing issue, pushed by conservatives in every swing electoral state? What's the rationale, if Clifford is incorrect about this?Regardless of whichever study is correct, whether there have been 30 incidents or 30,000, if there exists a better system with fewer cracks to exploit, we should use it to prevent issues in the future.It's like discovering a bug in a website, you report it and patch it, because even if it was exploited only a couple of times before, once the word is out on how to do it, you want to stop future incidents. It's closing the barn doors before the horses leave. And if you get to keep those "other people" from voting then all the better. Look, I've already proposed answers that don't disenfranchise any eligible voter. So don't pin motives on me I do not have. It seems to me all the left wants to do is keep open avenues of fraud. I don't get why we have to keep an antiquated system of better ones exist. And I don't get the rationale behind waiting for a disaster before plugging a few small holes. This country is getting more divided and the people more fervent in their allegiance to political parties. Even if fraud hasn't been a huge problem in the past, I see no reason not to think some wackjobs might coordinate efforts in the future to spoil an election. I don't get why is a bad thing to make simple improvements now, before there's a problem, to protect the integrity of democracy. I guess you just don't believe in that. I would buy that coming from you. So you oppose the recent efforts to use voter id laws to simply disenfranchise any eligible voter possible? While you are open to the idea as part of a larger modernization effort? Why don't you try reading my posts before you accuse me of positions I do not have.
  12. More drama-queen hyperbole on your part? Check. 31 credible incidents out of a billion votes cast? And yet it continues to be a pressing issue, pushed by conservatives in every swing electoral state? What's the rationale, if Clifford is incorrect about this?Regardless of whichever study is correct, whether there have been 30 incidents or 30,000, if there exists a better system with fewer cracks to exploit, we should use it to prevent issues in the future.It's like discovering a bug in a website, you report it and patch it, because even if it was exploited only a couple of times before, once the word is out on how to do it, you want to stop future incidents. It's closing the barn doors before the horses leave. And if you get to keep those "other people" from voting then all the better. Look, I've already proposed answers that don't disenfranchise any eligible voter. So don't pin motives on me I do not have. It seems to me all the left wants to do is keep open avenues of fraud. I don't get why we have to keep an antiquated system of better ones exist. And I don't get the rationale behind waiting for a disaster before plugging a few small holes. This country is getting more divided and the people more fervent in their allegiance to political parties. Even if fraud hasn't been a huge problem in the past, I see no reason not to think some wackjobs might coordinate efforts in the future to spoil an election. I don't get why is a bad thing to make simple improvements now, before there's a problem, to protect the integrity of democracy. I guess you just don't believe in that. I would buy that coming from you.
  13. More drama-queen hyperbole on your part? Check. 31 credible incidents out of a billion votes cast? And yet it continues to be a pressing issue, pushed by conservatives in every swing electoral state? What's the rationale, if Clifford is incorrect about this?Regardless of whichever study is correct, whether there have been 30 incidents or 30,000, if there exists a better system with fewer cracks to exploit, we should use it to prevent issues in the future. It's like discovering a bug in a website, you report it and patch it, because even if it was exploited only a couple of times before, once the word is out on how to do it, you want to stop future incidents. It's closing the barn doors before the horses leave.