Sarnoff

exhaust from a car Taping a bag around one's head.

All of 'em

Hollywood Reporter

Those are three tricks, Copernicus.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IIRC, AC/DC does not allow their music on any digital service

Gail seemed intrigued by blindfold-play in the bedroom...

Going to Vegas in early September, my travel buddy is staying there with rewards points.

New series starts tonight: Top Chef Duels. Episode 1 is Richard Blais vs. Marcel

when you quote the post the are there This could be the beginning of a new frontier in shtick

Why should this noodle company be worthy of an investment over ShopHouse, the noodle-chain restaurant that is spun off of the already successful and proven Chipotle? What impact do you see in them trying to compete with such a powerhouse franchise?

I like the Cracked.com podcasts to listen to while I'm running.