krill

Haha...my freshman roommate drank that stuff. The orange one was tolerable, but the other flavors, good god. Old Style and Popov vodka were my weapons of choice. $1 draws of PBR at Woody's were tough to beat too!

Good news, but the trend of 5-4 decisions on major cases is destroying the credibility of the court. It gives the losing the side the impression that they are one justice croaking or retiring away from having it their way, and that one swing vote is holding immense power over a body that is supposedly impartial.

If that's the case, it says quite a bit about the state of our intelligence agencies when a high school dropout is able to infiltrate the NSA in a position where he had unilateral access to highly sensitive information. Due to the abstruse nature of their work with little, if any public oversight, combined with the increasing privatization of their operations, it's been fairly well documented that the CIA and NSA are now cesspools of the most unimaginable waste, incompetence, and increasing politicization. Whether you believe Mr. Snowden is a hero or a traitor, I believe everyone needs to parse through the fallout and consider exactly what is going on here.

Somewhere in between. A hero would have stayed in the country and faced the consequences, but then he'd quietly be be rotting in a prison in a state of legal limbo like Bradley Manning. If I was living in Hawaii with a stripper girlfriend and making $200k at a cushy job, I'd probably keep riding the train. Perhaps shunning that makes him a hero in a different way.

In the good old days, when nations went to war and won, cities were sacked and pillaged, the population enslaved, and the conquered nations were then squeezed for money as a client state. We have the most powerful military in the history of world, maybe we should start looking for a military solution. Historically Parthia (modern day Iran) was always a juicy target for conquest, maybe we could start there? I do consider this a more serious proposal than the ones presented by our politicians.

I find it gravely concerning that our government is already circling the wagons to brand Snowden a traitor and presenting preposterous claims such as this illegal surveillance program could have prevented 9/11. For all the money and civil liberties we have surrendered, the only terrorism that has been prevented is of the massively incompetent sort. Even that does not have a very good success rate with two morons recently blowing up a marathon in one of our largest cities. This entire surveillance apparatus could easily be circumvented by people with an understanding of cryptography that is freely available to anyone, and it's secrecy was destroyed by a civilian contractor that apparently had not been been working there very long. So, given that is won't work to prevent terrorism, and given the size and scope of the program, couldn't possibly remain secret forever, what exactly is the purpose? If a simple credit score with a few entries can determine with relative accuracy how trustworthy you are to borrow money, imagine what a massive database processing and correlating all your phone calls, emails. text, web searches, social media post, and god knows what else could be used for. Oh, and it will also have no public oversight or legal basis. Not scared yet? I am not one for conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to explain why the government wants this program so badly.

I read an article in Time some months ago about the logistics of leaving Afghanistan, which are almost impossible to fathom. When the military withdrew from Iraq there were flat roads straight into friendly nations with large ports and a well established infrastructure for staging. Afghanistan is a rugged, landlocked nation with horrible infrastructure, and the roads through Pakistan have been closed on and off. As such, flying stuff in and out has been astronomically expensive. Anyway, I can't help but wonder if this situation has at least in part arisen because of all the contracting the military does now. If the contractors preparing hot meals have to leave before the Marines as forces are drawn down, then it would seem there is no solution to the problem. At the very least though, I thought that MREs were a lot better now than they were in the past? Maybe as a part of more acceptable solution, the military could buy the freeze dried food that is sold for backpacking. Those are pretty good and there's probably a lot more variety than regular MREs.

Now that I've actually sat down and read through non-biased reporting of what actually happened, this hardly seems like a scandal at all. A small group of individuals took a short-cut to filter applications for non-profit groups that were themselves skirting campaign laws on a huge scale. So far as we know, this was not done at anyone's behest, and it shouldn't be shocking that filtering top level directives to change practices down to front line employees through a huge bureaucracy took so long. Now what are the chances that congress springs into action to rectify obvious flaws in campaign finance laws that are allowing groups supporting both parties to directly engage in political activities as non-profit organizations? Or even, god forbid, give the IRS better tools to check applications in an unbiased manor. This was obviously a huge issue in the last election with seemingly anyone willing to open a checkbook starting a political group to endlessly bombard us all with political advertising.

The IRS business is the only one that can be qualified as a scandal. Trouble is that since 1994, with perhaps a brief intermission post-9/11, congressional politics have been little more than a circus show. After nearly two decades of wolf being cried on a weekly basis, the public conscious seems completely desensitized to real corruption and scandals. I think the last time congress did its job fully investigating a major scandal was Iran-Contra, and even then guilty parties were mostly let off the hook. Now we have a congress that is less popular than herpes and increasingly unable to do even the most basic duties.

One of things I like about our volleyball team is that many players like Hayley from small class C and D schools have gone through and been able to play out a dream. It's terrible that her senior year has been snatched away by such a serious injury. Hope she is able to make a full recovery and still contribute something to a team that is looking very green.

The scouts seem to have been lost in all the nonsense in this thread. Scouting is one of the few things I look back on from my childhood and early adult life and believe was worthwhile. At least in our troop all the supposedly rigid rules were not followed to a T. Of course some troops did have more authoritarian leaders that ultimately just degraded the experience for the scouts and probably drove people away. So, if someone that's been a scout since age 7-8, and discovers they are gay at age 12-14, they should really be kicked out in disgrace if they come out? Continuing on my thoughts above, I can see some leaders that would want to kick them out because of their own beliefs with the rules as a flimsy pretense. The attitudes about homosexuality in this country have changed a great deal in the past two decades and it's time for the BSA to catch up or be left behind with more people being turned off. I feel this is of particular importance because for children and young adults in larger cities, the BSA may be their only opportunity to do things like camping and get out of doors for more than an afternoon. It also affords an opportunity disconnect from a screen for awhile, which far too many children seem incapable of doing unless something else to do is presented. So again, why should someone who happens to be gay be excluded from this?

Your comments are all based on "ifs". In the present and near future, the federal government is borrowing money at effectivly negative interest. In short the interest on debt issued is lower than the rate of inflation. So the idea that defcit spending during Obama's tenue will cripple future generations is patently false. In fact, there are some who believe we should be borrowing as much as possible at these rates to build things that will benefit future generations and provide jobs now. This would certainly be more beneficial than borrowing money to offset lower tax revenue, which is the long and short of what we're doing. Differant dicussion though, and one that is clearly not palpable to people that are lasered in on the numerical deficit without really understanding what debt is and who holds it. I won't pretend to be an expert on monetary policy, but it's impossible to predict what effect our policies will really have in the future since much of it is based on intangibles. The Euro is in trouble, Japan has been fighting deflation for over a decase with similar policies, and China has resisted a more open currency at every turn to make their exports competitive. As we curtail outflows from military occupations and oil imports, this also makes the dollar a stronger currancy. It's not likely that we will have a sudden surge in inflation like the late 70s due to oil embargoes and shattered consumer confidence. Of course if housing collapses again and / or recession sets in again, it's a different ball game.

There's probably some room to increase income taxes on the poor and / or cut back on refundable tax credits. The idea that some people are getting a free ride from taxation though is nonsense. Everyone who works pays payroll taxes, everyone who purchases goods pays sales taxes, and a litany of other taxes and fees beyond income taxes. As for the tax burden increasingly falling on the wealthy, it shouldn't be that hard to do the math showing that surprisingly when the wealthy are the only ones seeing an real increase income, they pay more taxes.

If Cheney says we'll be greeted as liberators, that's good enough for me to support another war from the comfort of my lazy-boy.

So if 500 North Koreans jumped off a cliff in defense of the dear leader turning winter in spring or whatever Kim's latest miraculous achievement is, and a few guys scribbled down hearsay of these events, those writings could be used as a testament to the truth of said miracles at a (far) later date? I think the context of the life and times of Jesus is often lost. The events of his life were completely insignificant in the context of contemporary Rome; there were many unruly groups in Judea, and a multitude of cults and mystics that came went. It just so happened that Christianity came along at a time when all the territories under Roman control had more or less been folded into a cohesive unit, which enabled a modicum of stability, trade, and exchanging of ideas. The state sanctioned pagan religion was not very compelling for the average citizen that could look forward to a short, miserable existence...Christianity on the other hand offered a promise of much more. What I'm getting at is it's pointless to be concerned with the details of religion. You either believe and follow the core tenets of what Jesus taught or don't...it doesn't really matter if he multiplied a basket of bread, walked on water, or was resurrected.

All taxes for people who make under 150k or so should follow the state lottery model, i.e. all our taxes should be in game form, and all gas stations and bars should have government run casinos attached to them.

UPS and Fedex are not lobbying to get into the big business of delivering 50 cent letters to cattle ranches in Aurthur county. There is no money to be made in the majority of USPS's business. It is by design a public service that guarantees mail service to every household. It does still provide an economic benefit for consumers too by facilitating small item e-commerce and competing with what would otherwise be a duopoly for package delivery. I guess using BigRedBuster's logic, we would be better off if USPS was killed and it cost 10x more for letter service with UPS or Fedex, and the proof would be an astronomical profit margin in a captive market, as is the case with health care?

Beggining your statement by proudly annoucing that you did not read, watch, or even consider the point of the discussion makes for a very compelling argument.

I've sold a couple motorcycles on CL and wouldn't take anythings besides cash or a cashiers check personally. Paypal is great for the buyers since it offers more payment options, but I'm not sure what the seller is on the hook for with non-eBay payments, and some types of payments like eChecks can take forever to clear.

Damn, I spent way too much time on this one! The realistic option to emerge sane and healthy, with money jacuzzi - 3 library - 4 weight room - 5 kitchen - 6 tv - 7 skylight - 2 movies - 4 music - 4 $5 million The not going to make it option girl - 18 drugs - 5 booze - 5 jacuzzi - 3 TV - 7 microwave food - 2 $0, planned OD

Did you ever register your card?. Before the 7000 series, all XFX cards had lifetime warranties and they are honored in a timely fashion after going through the service ticket hoops. Since the 5870 has been off the shelf for so long you probably won't get one back, instead a product of "comparable performance"...maybe a 7770, or whatever refurbs they have laying around. The fan is replaceable, whether you have the reference blower style or non-reference bladed fan. It's just a matter of obtaining one from ebay or such and carefully disassembling the heatsink. You can also buy entire aftermarket heatsinks that will perform better than the stock units. If you can't get a warranty replacement and don't want to mess around with a new fan or heatsink, the 7950 is a good choice and more attractive with the new game bundle. The 660 Ti is nice, but the smaller memory bus can mean lower minimum FPS at high resolutions, and if you really want the AMD game bundle, the price advantage on a good deal is negated. I've had a 7950 for a couple months now with no complaints other than the lack of dual DVI.

If our fine governor didn't propose these tax reforms and at least make a token effort to pass them, you do realize that his paycheck at whatever think tank or lobbying job he lands after public service will be considerably smaller? Stop thinking about yourself and our state for once, and start thinking about poor Dave's prospects in a few years.

Wow. You do realize these people pay insurance premiums for the national flood insurance program? When Hallam was destroyed by a tornado a few years back, I don't recall anyone writing to the LJS stating that they should have planned better, or it would be best to keep the feds out of it. If Nebraska suffered through a few years of crippling drought, I seriously doubt anyone would say this is the time to end subsidies for crop insurance, hang farmers out to dry, and live with the state's economy in ruin. It is better for the whole nation to rebuild areas hit with disasters as quickly as possible, which means leveraging the resources of the entire nation. States don't have the resources to do it, and the idea that a city could plan to be destroyed and then rebuild itself is hysterical. Also, on a side note, many people in coastal areas can't buy adequate disaster insurance because unlike armchair climate experts, insurance companies employ actual climate experts that understand the risk climate change has introduced. So unless we are going to order any area that could possibly be hit by a disaster to be depopulated or to fend for themselves, the only solution is for government to fill the void of private insurance and manage what states and local governments cannot.

I like how people will accuse Obama of a power grab one minute, and then the next fault him for not acting like a dictator. This congress has had to be bludgeoned into doing the most basic task and is without a doubt the worst in modern history, perhaps the worst in our history. Spending bills have to be passed with unrelated appropriations because the appropriation process has ceased to function. Very little legislation can move though a body that is comprised of members that spend half their time fundraising, and much of the other half not working to craft and vote on legislation.

Now we're getting somewhere. So what's the end game with statements like this? Are you in favor of legislation that restricts what food McDonald's can sell? Because we already have the 16 oz. soda ban in NYC. It seems that our society is generally starting to lean towards a political environment where we're ok with removing our right to do as we please. Obviously, I see the distinction between a firearm and a cheeseburger. But the basic concepts fit under one umbrella. To quote the venerable Ron Swanson, "The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful." No, I am not in favor of legislation that restricts what type of food restaurants can sell, or somehow trying to force adults to eat healthy. What I am saying is that fast food restaurants have played a role in how our attitudes and expectations with food have evolved over the years...that is plainly obvious. I don't know what the answer is. Today 30+ people will probably be killed by morons texting behind the wheel, yet there are people who will vigorously defend their right to do so. I have a problem with any life that is ended by stupidity, incompetence, or random undeserved violence. Maybe this is strictly a mental health issue, but I promise you that sweeping legislation to rectify the problem in that manor alone will be far more invasive, and intrude on you rights far more than not being able to buy a 30 round mag by mail.