Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Sarnoff

Members
  • Posts

    15,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Sarnoff

  1. exhaust from a car Taping a bag around one's head.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. IIRC, AC/DC does not allow their music on any digital service
  7. Gail seemed intrigued by blindfold-play in the bedroom...
  8. Going to Vegas in early September, my travel buddy is staying there with rewards points.
  9. New series starts tonight: Top Chef Duels. Episode 1 is Richard Blais vs. Marcel
  10. when you quote the post the are there This could be the beginning of a new frontier in shtick
  11. 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?
  12. I like the Cracked.com podcasts to listen to while I'm running.
  13. I never knew about this until I checked out Doug KennyI feel obligated to find it and watch it. Everyone always said Doug was the comedy genius of the Lampoon gang. Sucks he passed so young.
  14. It's always fun when Tim takes third-hand anecdotes from people in different professions than the topic at hand as fact (telephone operators treated as experts in the insurance industry, local general practitioner treated as an expert in macroeconomic theory, etc). Still can't stand the fact that my doctor contradicted you, eh? Not at all. I just don't get why you listen to him. Just because he wears a white coat doesn't mean he knows anything more on the issue than TommyGunz
  15. It's always fun when Tim takes third-hand anecdotes from people in different professions than the topic at hand as fact (telephone operators treated as experts in the insurance industry, local general practitioner treated as an expert in macroeconomic theory, etc).
  16. there should be a Breaking Bad Channel showing the series over and over again 24/7.. This would be awesome. And since they're doing a Saul series, they could do some other great spinoffs. One of the rise of Gus, Tio in his prime, Walt Jr growing up managing the local Denny's, etc. Badger Channel. Including episodes of Star Trek that he writes.
  17. Gut says a good entry point is not Monday. A good entry point may be in 2016.
  18. Not to mention the completely unrealistic assumptions on annual returns assumed for these pension funds.I like how California guaranteed results for teacher pensions. "Oh, the stock market didn't return 10% this year? I guess the taxpayers will make up the difference!"
  19. Here’s the problem that many conservatives have already identified: when the bills were merged, the HELP Committee bill’s explicit provision that subsidies were available on federal exchanges was dropped. Since Sargent’s post was published, several conservatives have convincingly argued that, applying standard rules of statutory construction, the disappearance of the provision allowing federal subsidies signifies that the drafters intended to drop it. The argument has been made by Jeff B. at Ace’s, Leon Wolf at RedState, and elsewhere. Baseball Crank gives you the basic argument in a concise tweet: If Congress initially put specific language in the bill providing for subsidies on federal exchanges, and later took that language out, it’s assumed to be deliberate. Ouch! But it gets even worse for Sargent. I’ve not seen anyone make this point yet, but Sargent has actually directly corroborated an argument made by the majority opinion in Halbig. Here is the Halbig opinion, and here is the key passage: Conservatives discussing Halbig have argued that the “established by the state” language was designed to provide an incentive for states to establish exchanges — by withholding subsidies unless the states established the exchanges. Lefties like Sargent say that theory was cynically concocted after the fact. But the Halbig court said, in essence: no, actually, it is not outlandish to think that Congress might have intended to withhold subsidies as an incentive for states to establish exchanges. After all, the HELP Committee did exactly that, in related legislation. The only thing that keeps this from being a slam dunk argument is, we can’t establish a direct connection between the HELP Committee legislation and the language in the PPACA. But Greg Sargent just did. The Halbig majority couldn’t say that the provision for subsidies “necessarily incorporated” the thinking of the HELP Committee. Now, thanks to the work of Greg Sargent, the Halbig plaintiffs can argue exactly that — because now we know that the language of PPACA was taken directly from the HELP Committee proposal. It’s not every day that a lefty ObamaCare fan hands a huge cudgel to opponents of the law. Thanks, Greg! Just . . . watch your back, buddy. Andres Escobar, the Colombian soccer player, paid a heavy price for his “own goal.” Sargent faces a crowd that is arguably more ruthless than the Colombian soccer fans: the pro-Obama hard left. Shudder. I’d hate to be in Sargent’s shoes right now. P.S. The Fourth Circuit opinion that ruled the opposite of Halbig, holding that subsidies are available on federal exchanges, dismissed the HELP Committee proposal in a footnote (footnote 3), saying that the plaintiffs put too much emphasis on it. Now that we know the HELP Committee proposal was a precursor to the very language at issue, future courts will have a tougher time dismissing the example with an airy wave of the hand.
  20. This from a guy who thinks his country doctor is an expert economist.
  21. if you’re going to be mad at people calling it a hashtag, you should be just as mad at people calling it a pound sign. WTF. That’s not a pound sign. I can't think of a single time anyone used it to represent a pound. You heard a lot of people saying "pound sign" lately? Yea, didn't think so. I hear it anytime I dial into a conference call.That's because on the phone, it is called the pound key (not pound sign). Pretty much standard usage in the US. When's the last time you heard a pre-recorded message say "Enter the last four digits of your account, then press the pound sign" or "number key"? What sign is on the pound key? Octothorpe.
×
  • Create New...