Profile

Cover photo
Dave Pacheco
Attended Macalester College
Lives in Minneapolis, MN
582 followers|260,274 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Fun drinking game to play while watching tonight's Sarah Palin interview of Donald Trump: take a shot every time you realize that you actually know who these people are and that means reality is just awful.
2
1
Steve Greene's profile photoBisbo Nian's profile photoJack Chord's profile photoJennifer Freeman's profile photo
4 comments
 
I wanted to say something but my better half said I was dangerous when I drink...
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Duh.  So not only have all of the investigations into PP so far failed to uncover any illegal or unethical activity, the videos that launched those resource-wasting investigations are as real as a three-dollar bill.

But this of course won't stop those who want PP closed down: they were always just a smokescreen to create outrage by implication, that a perfectly legal procedure done with the consent of the patient was somehow shady and illegal.  And other than providing arguments to those who already believed that (meaning: preaching to the choir), they have failed completely in doing so.

But it does show how people who want their agenda implemented don't seem to feel the need to present valid arguments for their case, which aren't that convincing; especially when it's so much easier to lie about their motivations and release misleading videos and get some quick and easy press.
The undercover Planned Parenthood videos that spurred a congressional investigation were so severely manipulated that they wouldn't hold up in court, according to an analysis by three teams of forensic experts.
4
3
Dave Pacheco's profile photoJennifer Freeman's profile photoJohn Brockman's profile photoWilliam Rutiser's profile photo
6 comments
 
And you seem to miss the point that the "let people decide for themselves" part has already happened.  In this case, those who dislike PP have found another reason to generate spluttery outrage over things that were already known, and those who support PP are, as they should be, utterly unconvinced by a very transparently misleading "sting".

Misleading video is released.  Those who already hate PP splutter.  Those who support PP shrug their shoulders.  There's no "there" there, after all.  

After a swirl of investigations that do nothing but waste time and money and resources better suited to providing more healthcare, orchestrated by the usual suspects who already disliked PP, it's found that nothing untoward or illegal happened.  We collectively yawn and continue down our previously-entrenched paths, and no one changes their mind.  No one who previously wanted PP defunded changes their mind, no one who supports continued women's healthcare changes their mind.

"Let the people decide" has already happened: they decided it's not worth focusing on agenda-driven scaremongers who have such disrespect (even for their own supporters) that they release videos so obviously manipulated they'd be laughable if women's healthcare weren't affected.

Ironically enough, PP gets a small uptick in their donations for this cycle.  That's worth a chuckle.

You also seem to forget that it was CMP who originally didn't want the full video released.  Why?  Because once you see the full video, you realize that the outrage generated by the out-of-context short video is misplaced.  But CMP relied on laziness: that those who supported them would only watch the edited version.  It worked for their supporters, but it doesn't work on everyone else.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Dear Target: how am I supposed to know what kind of toy to purchase for small children about whom I know the shape of their genitalia but absolutely nothing about their preferences or wants or likes?"

(what every person complaining to Target sounds like)
5
1
Jennifer Freeman's profile photo
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
That the people who claim every other action President Obama takes is "trampling the Constitution" are applauding Donald Trump's immigration policy proposal, that goes completely against every single historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment, tells you a lot about the mindset of those who support him.

It's the same mentality that cries "Obama's executive orders are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT" but seem to have been perfectly content when other Presidents have done exactly the same thing on issues they personally support, or when their preferred Presidential candidate promises to do so. How many candidates have made a stump speech point that on their first day in office they would implement an executive order to grant waivers to the ACA in all 50 states, and have received wild applause for it? The ACA is the law of the land, and they are getting kudos for saying "vote for me, and I will give you a pass on the laws you don't like, regardless of whether other people like them or not."

If you do it, it's illegal and unconstitutional. If I do it, it's me exercising my freedoms.

Executive orders happen. They are a Constitutionally-protected activity permitted to the Executive branch. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. I do not presume, however, that my disagreement renders an order unconstitutional.

Presidents of both parties have implemented them, candidates in both parties will definitely use them if elected (I haven't heard any candidate say they'll do away with executive orders after they are elected, and no President except William Henry Harrison, who died after 32 days in office, has rejected using them). When I disagree, I don't call for undermining the Constitution or the rule of law, and I don't openly promise my millions of followers that I will implement a policy that directly contravenes existing Constitutional Amendments to give them what they want.

Unfortunately, if my millions of followers elect ME President, we would be collectively disregarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which sets the requirements for Presidential eligibility. But one of the platforms of my campaign is that on my first day in office I will issue an Executive Order that replaces that clause of the Constitution with the lyrics to "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

After all, it only states the requirements for who is eligible to be President, not who is eligible to RUN for President. Vote for me, and I'll grant an Executive Order giving each of you THREE COUPONS to let you ignore ANY ONE CLAUSE OR AMENDMENT... FOREVER! (PS: choose the interstate commerce one, it's the basis of a LOOOOOOOT of related laws, so it's the biggest bang for your coupon buck)
5
1
Jordan Henderson's profile photoCurtis Wenzel's profile photoDave Pacheco's profile photoSteve Greene's profile photo
24 comments
 
Here's something I find amusing after your accusation of me editing a quote to support my case: let's look at what you posted (twice).

--------------- start quote -----------
Similarly, you've added context to the quote I made that wasn't there.

Here's the quote again:

Obama was asked if he could stop deportations of students with an executive order. “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order,” Obama replied, *“that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.”
Obama continued:
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.
--------------- end quote -----------

HOWEVER, I'll note that you cut out the most important part of the quote, which is the next line.  The rest of the quote (including that line) goes on like this:

"That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn’t mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country."

Clearly that is someone saying that they DO have prosecutorial and enforcement discretion on where to emphasize (and by implication, where to defer) enforcement.  That sounds like someone who believes they can indeed (even in the future) make further decisions on where to prioritize and where to defer deportation decisions.. which is exactly what the Executive Order did (NOT grant amnesty, and NOT provide a path to permanent residency status, which you seem to claim by equating the order to the Dream Act).

It also sounds like someone who knows that advocating for changes in the law (which would require Congress to participate and help) is necessary in the long run to make the immigration system more fair.

In short, that sounds like the words of someone who knows they have the ability to defer action (through prosecutorial discretion) as well as limitations on what they can do without the Legislative branch.

Which is exactly in line with what has happened.

Any claim of "contradiction" seems merely a gotcha! exercise in saying "No!  You said exactly these words in this order 3 years ago and that can only mean this one interpretation!" in spite of the fact that his actions and statements in other situations, both before and after, clearly imply that (a) there are other interpretations that are far more likely and (b) the interpretation you are providing is not only far LESS likely, but assumes the President didn't know at the time what his job was or what an Executive order was for.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Is anyone surprised? The problem with all of the videos released so far is that people are reacting with their gut about doctors calmly discussing perfectly legal medically-related procedures. It's what they do. And we're glad they do it, because otherwise your polio vaccine wouldn't exist.

But you can't react with your gut, without taking into account the consequences of doing so. And the consequences of "defunding" Planned Parenthood would do nothing to reduce the amount of the things you don't like (abortion, fetal tissue research), and would be harmful to the things you SHOULD like (HIV/STD/HPV screenings, contraception to prevent future abortions, for over 5 MILLION people a year).

You may not like it, but you probably wouldn't like to listen to doctors discussing the reimbursement of costs associated with the removal and donation of eyeballs from deceased patients to help other people see, either. Fetal tissue donation is legal, done only with the patient's consent, and while ordering investigations into Planned Parenthood is delicious red meat for politicians trying to rile up their bases, it's a waste of time and money and resources.

Unless you agree with Jeb Bush, who thinks that perhaps we don't need to be spending all that taxpayer money on women's healthcare. I don't work all day just so the government can take my hard-earned money and waste it on some floozy getting a pap smear and a breast cancer checkup!
8
4
Nick Bartolo's profile photoJennifer Freeman's profile photoBenton Landry's profile photoDarius Gabriel Constantine's profile photo
 
Yeah!  I work all day so we can fucking blow shit up around the world!  Damn right.  Freedom!
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
I don't even have the hardware to play any of these any more, so I can't tell what's on them. COULD BE VERY IMPORTANT! OR COULD BE OLD SOUTH PARK EPISODES!

- Windows 95 Preview Program installation disk
- MS Windows for Workgroups 3.11 install disks
- MS-DOS 6.21 (EMM386.EXE!!! HIMEM.SYS!!!)
- America Online for DOS v1.6
- America Online for Windows v2.5
- PC DOS 6.3
- Microsoft Excel v5 diskettes
- A bunch of Iomega Zip drive cartridges
- A HUGE amount of Sony MiniDiscs (which I think have mostly old Joe Frank radio shows)

...and I haven't even started looking at the old CDs yet.

Who has an old Zip drive or an old Sony MiniDisc player?
4
Steve Mays's profile photoBob Daniel's profile photoDan Eastwood's profile photoKevin OBryan's profile photo
6 comments
 
You must be really handy with a chisel and pick because you wittled those out of the Cambrian mud without a scratch.

I thought I was bad by finally taking my CDs to Amoeba this week.
Add a comment...
In his circles
308 people
Have him in circles
582 people
Tracy Hutchinson's profile photo
Jennifer Stevens's profile photo
Rose Marie Holt's profile photo
Dario Tangelson's profile photo
Judi Stegemoller's profile photo
Gordon Clark Teg Pipes's profile photo
tara lee's profile photo
David Ximenez's profile photo
John Beland's profile photo

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Map projections distort scales and don't give you a sense of the proportional size of states, countries and continents. For example, you could fit 5 Alaskas into another, bigger Alaska.
5
Bob Daniel's profile photoFred Bradbury's profile photo
2 comments
 
Just happen to be in the middle of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Maps-2nd-Edition/dp/0226534219
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
In the interest of preempting the inevitable scandal on social media that will result if/when the hack details are released to the public, I would like to come clean about information related to certain accounts I had set up on internet websites, and that I had preferred might remain anonymous.

So I'll just come right out and say it: yes, that is my email account and credit card associated with the account on Spotify that has 72,000 plays of "Shake It Up" by Taylor Swift and over 27,000 plays of "Let It Go" by Idina Menzel.

All I can say is that this happened during a troubling time for me, when I was facing significant stress both at home and at work, and I sought solace and comfort where I should not have. Yes, the YouTube video of me singing "Let It Go" while eating a quart of rocky road ice cream and crying is legitimate, and no: I have no excuse for why I recorded, edited and subsequently uploaded it seventeen times, once with my face blurred out and replaced with Natalie Merchant's, and once with Condoleezza Rice's.

I have already asked Jesus for forgiveness and feel in my heart that he has gracefully provided it to me. Now, I face the hard uphill work of finding the same forgiveness from my family. I hope that you, my friends, will give us the peace we need in these troubling times to get through our deeply personal issues in private, while I rebuild my shattered reputation as a heavy metal badass rock-and-roller. I am ashamed of the double life of secret addiction that I have lived while promulgating conservative, traditional roles for other music lovers, and making fun of anyone who listened to the "Glee" soundtrack non-ironically. To anyone whose musical preferences I ever dismissed as being "typical for lame-ass hipster douchebags", I hope you can accept my heartfelt apology.

Please keep us in your prayers for strength.

I will not be taking questions at this time. Thank you.



OK that went pretty well I think? Wrap it up with enough doe-eyed piety and those dumbasses will swallowed anything. I just hope my account from the My Little Ponies fan club website never leaks, amirite? Wait is this mic still on? HOLY CRAP WAIT DON'T PRESS "POST" DON'T PRESS "P
7
John Walkenbach's profile photoDave Pacheco's profile photo
3 comments
 
It's a PR schadenfreude.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
One of the worst feelings in the world is reaching the end of a book and realizing you should have gone with your gut feeling and thrown it across the room after the first chapter.

I COULD BE HALF WAY THROUGH A DIFFERENT, BETTER BOOK BY NOW.  I ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME LEFT IN MY LIFE.

This is why I have trust issues.
3
Tina Gautreau's profile photorone's profile photoDave Pacheco's profile photoRichard Holmes's profile photo
7 comments
 
For some books, judging them by their cover is investing more time than they're worth.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Hey Snopes, are you OK? Are you drunk? Do you need a friend?

Did you really need to write an article "debunking" the claim that there will be 37 moons appearing in this sky this September? Did you REALLY? DID YOU REEEEEEEEEALLY?

Snopes used to be a great place to catch up on the newest falsehoods being passed around on Facebook and email by your racist great-aunt who just got the internet last week. But now about 80% of the stories "debunked" are just links to articles from vigorously unfunny "satire" sites that believe it's the height of wit to publish an article saying an actor died... BUT GET THIS HE DIDN'T REALLY DIE LOL TOTALLY GOT YOU BRO YOU SHOULD SEE YOUR FACE RIGHT NOW DUDE YOU'RE SO STUPID FOR BELIEVING ME.

These "stories" aren't even worth the time it takes to debunk them.
The sight of 37 duplicate versions of the moon is unlikely to appear in the nighttime sky on 5 September 2015. Really, really unlikely.
5
1
John Walkenbach's profile photoHong Ooi's profile photoJacob Haller's profile photoDavid S's profile photo
8 comments
 
I'm under the impression that they pretty much post about this stuff if people write to them about it -- it's easier for them to put up an article than to keep saying 'this is obviously fake' over and over and over.

The biggest annoyance about Snopes for me is the popups.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is the video THEY don't want you to see. Share as widely as you can!
2
Dave Pacheco's profile photoRichard Holmes's profile photoHong Ooi's profile photoErich Duff's profile photo
5 comments
 
I didn't see nuthin'.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
You know what I'm done with? Mealy-mouthed half-apologetic defenses of Planned Parenthood.

"Oh, but only 3% of the services they provide are for abortions"

So? Stop apologizing for it, no matter what the percentage. If 3% of the operations Mayo Clinic performs are heart transplants, no one seems to feel the need to apologize for them. If Planned Parenthood were an organization that did nothing but perform abortions 100% of the time, they would still be deserving of support. So how is saying they "only" do a small number of abortions help defending them?

You don't seem to understand: you're arguing against people who want PP to perform ZERO abortions. "Only 3%" isn't an argument, and it's not a defense.

"But you can't make abortion illegal in all cases! What about incest and rape?"

What about all the other thousands of reasons that women have to get abortions? What about the fact that the decision they do so is between them and their medical professional, and is none of your damn business? What about you getting it out of your head that you need to approve the validity of the reason for someone else's medical decision?

Let's get less defensive about this. Let's be more proactive: celebrate Planned Parenthood and all the work that they do. Cancer screenings, HPV screenings, contraceptive care, STD screenings and treatments, heart disease and diabetes tests, education, information, risk, Pap tests, breast exams, helping to prevent unintended pregnancies and therefore reducing the number of future abortions, and so many other services to over FIVE MILLION PEOPLE a year.

And YES, ABSOLUTELY: abortions too. Not in tiny type under an asterisk on the last page of the pamphlet. You need an abortion? You have a valid reason? You want to talk to someone about it? Guess what, you're a woman, you have a brain, we trust you with it. They're medical practitioners, they'll help inform you of your options. Does it sound like anyone else needs to be in the room to provide their judgement on this decision? Not to me.

We allow people whose religious beliefs prevent them from getting blood transfusions to make that decision. I think it's rather misguided and idiotic, but it's their decision. But what you or I should never accept is allowing those people to impose that religious belief on someone else's choice to get a blood transfusion. We should be thinking about this the same way: don't like abortions? Don't get one, that's why we like choice.

Want to impose that dislike on someone else? Go stand behind the Jehovah's Witnesses, we'll get to your request right after we make blood transfusion illegal all across the United States, somewhere around the 17th of Nevernowfuckoff.

THAT is how we should be reacting to these attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, to the legislation aimed at making abortion care more complicated, expensive and restrictive for non-medical reasons, to the people on TV explaining why their religious beliefs should guide your medical decisions. We're very glad you like a book: unfortunately it has no good medical advice in it (except for the part about curing leprosy with dove blood, that part's totally awesome). Thank you for your opinion, there's the door.

Enough defense.
7
4
Dan Eastwood's profile photoAmber Petchey's profile photoShilpa J's profile photoTina Gautreau's profile photo
 
Say it loud and say it proud. If a woman chooses to get an abortion, I'm behind her. And willing to provide financial help if needed.
Add a comment...
People
In his circles
308 people
Have him in circles
582 people
Tracy Hutchinson's profile photo
Jennifer Stevens's profile photo
Rose Marie Holt's profile photo
Dario Tangelson's profile photo
Judi Stegemoller's profile photo
Gordon Clark Teg Pipes's profile photo
tara lee's profile photo
David Ximenez's profile photo
John Beland's profile photo
Work
Occupation
IT Enterprise Architect
Employment
  • IT Enterprise Architect, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Minneapolis, MN
Previously
London, UK - San Jose, Costa Rica - Santa Clarita, CA
Links
Story
Tagline
I am why we can't have nice things. I could be ANYONE!
Introduction
President of the MN chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I'm not a nerdy IT guy with all kinds of issues, but I play one in real life.
Education
  • Macalester College
    Computer Science / Dramatic Arts, 1991 - 1993
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Other names
El Conejo del Oubliette
A smaller selection of food and pastries than what is available in the other locations, but it's a smaller location too. Very cozy, very friendly.
Quality: ExcellentAppeal: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
Best popcorn ever!
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago
The beef with onions appetizer is amazing.
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago
Spring rolls goooooooood.
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago
8 reviews
Map
Map
Map
Original and thought-provoking theater.
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago
Best Bánh xèo since the Bona burned down...
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago
Public - 4 years ago
reviewed 4 years ago