In-A-Gadda-Levitre

I rarely read, and never post links to highly partisan bloggers, but I read a tweet about this today and checked the source. It's written by a technical volunteer, who knows how much fact vs. frustration, but it's fascinating how badly ORCA was implemented and executed in the final segment of the campaign. as a software guy, this is nothing short of incredible...

2013 Subaru BRZ (Scion FRS), under $30K, RWD not AWD (traction control is available), but fast and 6-speed manual

ya, I agree, so my opinion on what the republicans should do is this (and it'll never happen...) - form a new party, call it the Conservative Party, the only requirement for membership is that you're a fiscal conservative. I realize this is similar to the Libertarian party, but you get my point. You can be pro-choice, pro- or anti- anything on the social side. The purity requirement is killing the GOP, again IMO. You HAVE to be everything that a few extremists believe you should be and all at once. Worse, it keeps really good candidates from running or winning the primary. I could see someone like Chris Christie saying thanks, but no thanks in 2015 just because he doesn't want to tell people that he takes all of those positions.

maybe one of you can help me understand something.... I get the limited government, lower (and maybe simplify) my taxes, stay out of my wallet, don't ram your healthcare mandate down my throat, etc. - let's call it fiscal conservatism so, if a large group of americans believe that to the core, and I think they do, then why is it ok for that same government to decide whether a woman can have an abortion, can marry someone of the same sex, or any of the other socially conservative mandates that are seemingly ok to ram down the throats of the citizens? why is it not only ok, but required that gov't stay out of those financial issues, yet they're able to decide some really personal things about others based on their own beliefs and faith? seems pretty hypocritical to me...

I'm with you on that. I worked for a startup with lots of newly minted millionaires, and the parking lot was full of Porsches, Mercedes, and loaded SUVs (lots of snow in san mateo). My TT was unique and got lots of stares, compliments and a couple female business cards tucked under the wipers (for real). The handling and acceleration from a 1.8L turbo 4 banger was killer.

Google them, I bet less than $300 each if you can put them in yourself.

meltdown, probably not, but when Megyn Kelly asked him whether his math was something he "does as a Republican to make himself feel better, or is this real?", I was lmao

I only put about 30K on mine in just over 2 yrs. The only bill I ever had was 2 new tires. They used really sticky low-profile, z-rated tires that wore out quickly. Their warranty covered everything but tires, literally, including oil changes, air filters, all that. Birddog sounds like he had it much worse cuz he held on to his.

I also had 1 of the 1st 2000s, like #11 to enter the US. I was in Silicon Valley and the dot com crash forced me to sell it right around the time the maintenance/warranty ended. So, ya, if you needed out-of-warranty repairs, at an $85/hour labor rate, those bills rack up quickly. I agree, a limited availability car like an S4 wouldn't give you much negotiation leverage, but an A4, A6, etc, with 6 dealers around is a totally different animal. those are nice, but I think you could fit a TT inside a Pacifica. More like a bad ass Town-and-Country.

I thought I read meazza said he was Canadian and there's 7-8 Audi dealers in the TO metro area. I had a TT also, one of the 1st ones, their bumper-to-bumper warranty was nothing short of amazing. It even covered things like brakes and exhaust. The only expense I ever had was tires, so not sure what your experience was...

I'm curious, that long-form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii was what? A forgery? A head fake by the WH? Not in-depth enough for you? about that third-world thing... did you consider that maybe those immigrants left their third-world country to come to the USA because it's radically different and better (opportunities) than where they came from and they don't want it to ever look like what they left behind, things like culture and food aside? And maybe, they choose to be democratic because they don't identify with the platform that they hear or at least believe to be true about the GOP? And that immigration thing, ya, where do I sign up to join a party that wants to deport us? Your circular logic is interesting, but IMO, far from reality.

woot, F1 returns to the USA for real next month! Mario Andretti checks out the new circuit near Austin.

this is weird, but very cool passengers help spot stranded yacht

ya, it's Hasselbeck, he was 25/44, with 1 TD and 1 int in last week's win over the Steelers.

No big surprise, but Jake Locker probably won't suit up on Sunday...

his airport crib

the footage is amazing... good write-up from USA Today Discovery's Curiosity page with features about the upcoming crash episode

Well, unless they win on appeal, this law is parked until after the election...

The decline in OH might well be true. What's interesting is that no source is provided for the OH data. The Third Way report is online, and there's clear dem decline in states like FL, but I wonder what study or data they derived OH from...

as much as you might love this to be true, it's not an Obama phone

The concept that Obama is giving away free phones is not what it's being portrayed as. LifeLine and Link-up, supported through the Universal Service Fund, has been around since the mid-80s and was expanded in 2008, before Obama took the oath. Snopes explains the history and the video in question is referring to the Lifeline program. Yes, the costs have gone up considerably during Obama's administration, most likely due to fraud, but to claim that this is an Obama phone, started by his administration is just false.

by developing assessments based on collection, research, and analysis of electronic surveillance, human intelligence, and probably a whole lot of stuff that the average person isn't privy to. In this case, that being hindsight 20-20, the assessments were false, misleading, as well as unconfirmed, and the results were catastrophic, IMO of course.

the words I get, what I don't understand is the question, just elaborate a ill bit for a half wit like me.

No, nothing of the sort. I'd read that article more than a year ago, cuz when you Google 'wmds found in Iraq', it's in the 1st 5 results. I just wasn't surprised you linked to it, that's all. I accepted your proof that there was some chemical weapons found, not sure why you think I was being snarky. umm what? Help me understand your question.