What you should compare it to is the amount of money that the government actually collects. If you just went by GDP alone, and raised taxes high enough, we could pay of the national debt in a few years. Would any administration from any party even suggest such a thing? Heck no.
Well, 1) because some girls just like to play with other girls, and 2) because guys are getting tired of women demanding equality, but only at their convenience and only when it suits them. i.e. the feminists who demanded that Annika Sorenstam be allowed to play with the men because she was good enough. However, there are plenty of male golfers who can't compete with Tiger Woods but could do well in the LGPA, so why not let them play in women's tournaments? Demanding to be allowed into the men's clubhouse while still having a sign outside yours saying "no boys allowed" is lame hypocrisy.
all girls because some little 15 y/o boy is afraid I will beat him? Any male who thinks we should be seperated needs to grow up. It won't hurt your ego that bad to loose to a girl.
If you're demanding respect you might consider showing some, and lay off the "little boy" schtick.
Few things are more fun than taking cocky, obnoxious teenaged boy gamers down a few pegs... or, for that matter, cocky, obnoxious male gamers of any age....yeah, by cocky, obnoxious, man-hating female gamers. Whoop de frikkin do.
Women are not built like that, nor do they normally dress like that.
So what? Much like in comics, men aren't any more realistically portrayed in games than women are. Feminists whine about how the women are all thin, attractive and have huge breasts, ignoring the fact that the men are built like brick shithouses and are hung like rhynos. Even guys like Bruce Banner and pre-spider bite Peter Parker, who supposedly were the origional 98 pound weakings, look like they have 1% body fat and work out six days a week.
Way to go, man. The parent post was obviously a foolish retard for trying to look at the bright side and needed to be smacked down. Better yet, the next time you run into an optimist, just slap him in the face.
...that encourages businesses to screw consumers over. A class action lawsuit is sometimes the only way to make a company feel any pain for their actions. The government either doesn't care enough or doesn't levy fines large enough for the business to take notice. You might have a great lawyer, but as an individual you aren't going to get a judgement or settlement large enough to make the company change their business practices.
Score 1 for the consumers? No, score 1 for the lawyers who walked away with millions
What, so you want to leave the money in the hands of the business that screwed you over? Thats frikkin genius. If it comes down to negligent/criminal executives having the money or giving it to someone who doesn't need it, I'd give it to Warren Buffet. So what if the lawyers get most of the money; they *are* the ones doing all of the work in the lawsuit, and if they don't win they don't get anything.
They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not letting the world know of his existence. Well the devil must be pretty envious right now, because companies have convinced gullible voters that eliminating a company's reponsibility for their actions is somehow beneficial to consumers.
If everyone took the same 'principled stand' that you have, the record companies would just keep breaking the law and keep using their monopoly to overcharge for their products. Way to go, man.
I don't think he's trolling, even though he claims he is. It's perfectly true: MA residents had the opportunity to boot the confiscatory income tax.
Why, when the income tax is arguably the fairest tax of all?
Personally, I'd much rather pay a sales tax, as I am in charge of what I buy
I'd rather you not, as only having a sales tax is very unfair. Lets say I'm a single guy and I make $35k a year. My married friend with 4 kids also makes $35k a year. Now, which of us is going to have to spend more money? Why should he be forced to pay more in taxes because he has a family?
than have an income forcibly taken from me with little accountability to how it is spent.
Are you under 18? A felon? An immigrant who hasn't obtained his citizenship yet? Haven't lived long enough in your current state to establish residency? None of the above? Then whats to stop you from voting or running for office?
We're conditioned to think in terms of "take home pay" as if government really "deserves" the rest of what we earn.
Taxes aren't the problem, people who are self-centered and greedy are the problem. The government doesn't take money from you to hoard it for its own purposes, its for you and the society you live in.
Some good movies use them, but a whole lot of bad movies depend upon them. Plus, the more you use something, the less effective it is. Would you sit up and take notice if a rapper is cussing a blue streak throughout a song? Probably not. But if your grandma were to drop an f-bomb out of the blue, you probably would.
...he's an ALJ for the Social Security Administration and does hearings on disability benefits. Usually claimants are notified in the mail of the outcome of the hearing, but he tells paranoid schizophrenics right away. Its also one of the reasons why he has an unlisted phone number.:)
I didn't look at your site, but I hope you are doing well personally and with your work.
I disagree, NPR can be very biased in which facts they choose to talk about.
As I and others have said before: name one source of media that is consistently less biased than NPR. Put up or shut up.
I've listened to some of thier discussions on guns and they are quite mis-informed almost to the point of outright lieing.
Ah, I see. They must be biased because they don't share your bias?
Yes, I'm talking about being asked if he had sexual relations with her and he said no. Seing that it was relevent
Since you missed it the first time: whatever happened between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton is irrelevant to what happened to what happened between Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. Monica and Paula never met, never worked in the same office, and so on. Ir-frikkin-relevant.
was perjury and was thus disbarred
Bzzzt, wrong. Since it wasn't relevant, it can't be perjury even if he lied through his teeth, but its impossible to prove that he lied rather than misunderstanding the courts definition of exactly what "sexual relations" amounted to. Here's a nice article debunking the various right wing poppycock on the subject.
As for your links, notice that neither one even mentioned perjury, not even the one with the animated elephant on the page. The Arkansas Supreme Court disbarred him for misleading testimony, which is very weak considering that this was a witch hunt. Clinton had plenty of grounds to challenge it, but he made an agreement to get the whole situation over and done with.
While Clinton continually calimed it to not be perjury most other judges and lawyers said it was.
Obviously you need to talk to some smarter lawyers and judges.
Most people call getting a blow job sexual ralations and saying "I didn't" to mean, well you didn't. I think there is ample proof that he ejaculated by her ministrations - once more what the vast majority of people consider sexual relations (to put it another way, would you consider your signifigant other being orally stimulated by other people to be ok and not sexual relations? I bet not).
Which is why the lawyers argued over the definition for some time. Which is why its easy for Clinton to say he misunderstood the courts definition (and its even arguable that receiving a BJ fit said definition). Which is why its impossible to prove that he lied. Remember that lawyers can split hairs with the best of them, and Clinton was a lawyer for 25 years.
Ultimatly no matter what you do there will be a bias
I never said that NPR didn't have any bias. But as others have said: name some that have less than NPR. Other than maybe the Associated Press, you aren't going to find one in this country.
Nor have I ever, nor will I ever, claim to be unbiased.
Bully for you. But if you're going to be biased, you might want to get the facts straight at least...
Much as they ignored Clinton's felony perjury and focused on sex.
If you're talking about the 'sexual relations' fiasco, it wasn't perjury, much less a felony. In fact you can't even prove what he said in court was a lie. For a statement to be perjury, it has to be relevant. Which is exactly how the judge ruled: wether or not he lied about the blow job, it was irrelevant to the rest of the case.
I agree they are greedy little fucks, but they are doing a piss poor job of sucking up to the administration or the republicans.
I wouldn't say that. The chief weapons inspector was just testifying in the Senate that Iraq doesn't have any WMD's, but what does the media decide to harp on? The so called "Dean scream".
But we could compare anecdotes all day. What I really think it comes down to, is: the vast majority of American media doesn't cover the news, they present it. They couldn't just state the facts and What Really Happened to save their lives; every story is presented with spin and bias.
Which is why its soooooo nice listening to NPR, because unless they're interviewing someone or doing investigative reporting, they just state the facts.
Nice link. But that is nicely countered by the fact that media companies are, in general, Greedy Little Fucks. And by sucking up to the very deregulation friendly administration and FCC, they might be able to expand their markets past the current cap.
So they have a very strong incentive to Play Nice the Republicans in the White House and Congress.
Meanwhile, a post I wrote this morning defending FoxNews--often accused of being biased toward the right for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded down as "Off-topic."
Probably because there is no "-1, Idiot" mod. Because there is no "liberal bias" in the media, and never has been. None. Nadda. Zip. This fallacy is based around two things: ignoring conservative media (Rush, Drudge), and only looking at "liberal" columnists in newspapers while ignoring the conservative ones who are on the same page. So because the NY Times prints Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert, it must be a liberal paper, despite the fact that the print the scribes of the hawk William Safire and the conservative David Brooks.
That doesn't even make sense. If a private station must worry about not offending sides, that would give it even more incentive to be non-biased.
Of course it makes sense, to anyone with any intelligence. If you're a non-profit, you don't have to worry about offending a company that pays you to air their commercials. See your favorite news station for a perfect example. But if you are a commercial news entity, that means you compete for ratings. Which, in todays media, means you hype stories and look for scandals to report on. i.e. Gore and the myths of his fibbing, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence, Quayle and the potatoe thing, etc etc.
NPR gets major contributions from left-leaning entrepeneurs.
So? I'm sure they get plenty of donations from conservatives who are also tired of American media's love of presenting the news rather than covering it.
which makes one wonder why we still have to pay for them to be on the air when they don't need us to keep them afloat.
1) thats not true, and 2) donating money gives you a say in what kind of programming they have. They'll probably lose a lot of donations from people having exactly your attitude, and non-profit broadcasting is an expensive busiiness to be in. PBS especially is having to go through a very expensive conversion to HDTV equipment. As for getting a say, do you like jazz? Ask them to have more jazz programs when you send them your pledge. Want more shows like Car Talk? Ask them to do a show with some guys from Tech TV.
NPR and PBS are Good Things, and I wish more people would support them.
NPR usually gets critiqued for their viewpoint selection. In other words, they choose the people they agree with to appear.
What, so NPR can't interview anyone without also interviewing someone at the same time that has an opposing viewpoint? I guess that makes them a bed of right wing bigots since they just had an economist on who thinks that the Bush tax cuts are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR).
Oh, so just because he's a journalist, he's not allowed to state an opinion? Even off the air, away from his show?
The think the jerkies here forget is, Apple is an OEM. If the motherboard on your Latitude goes to shit, they aren't going to buy a Presario motherboard from HP to replace it. An OEM is going to replace a bad with one of is own, not from some random smoe company.
he ipod mini is a worst of both worlds solution, its a shitty hard drive player, not a good flash player. People buy flash players to excercise with or when they need really high battery life, otherwise there is really no reason to have on as they cost more and do less.
What the heck are you talking about? Maybe you live in an aparment complex filled with marathon runners training for the olympics, but 99% of the population does not exersize for more than 8 hours at a time. "Worst of both worlds" indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
What you should compare it to is the amount of money that the government actually collects. If you just went by GDP alone, and raised taxes high enough, we could pay of the national debt in a few years. Would any administration from any party even suggest such a thing? Heck no.
Men have to put up with as much, if not more, sexism from women as the other way around.
Why should I have to play against all girls
Well, 1) because some girls just like to play with other girls, and 2) because guys are getting tired of women demanding equality, but only at their convenience and only when it suits them. i.e. the feminists who demanded that Annika Sorenstam be allowed to play with the men because she was good enough. However, there are plenty of male golfers who can't compete with Tiger Woods but could do well in the LGPA, so why not let them play in women's tournaments? Demanding to be allowed into the men's clubhouse while still having a sign outside yours saying "no boys allowed" is lame hypocrisy.
all girls because some little 15 y/o boy is afraid I will beat him? Any male who thinks we should be seperated needs to grow up. It won't hurt your ego that bad to loose to a girl.
If you're demanding respect you might consider showing some, and lay off the "little boy" schtick.
Few things are more fun than taking cocky, obnoxious teenaged boy gamers down a few pegs ... or, for that matter, cocky, obnoxious male gamers of any age. ...yeah, by cocky, obnoxious, man-hating female gamers. Whoop de frikkin do.
Women are not built like that, nor do they normally dress like that.
So what? Much like in comics, men aren't any more realistically portrayed in games than women are. Feminists whine about how the women are all thin, attractive and have huge breasts, ignoring the fact that the men are built like brick shithouses and are hung like rhynos. Even guys like Bruce Banner and pre-spider bite Peter Parker, who supposedly were the origional 98 pound weakings, look like they have 1% body fat and work out six days a week.
Yeah, cause God knows men never have to put up with degrading comments from women in any social setting.
You're an idiot.
Way to go, man. The parent post was obviously a foolish retard for trying to look at the bright side and needed to be smacked down. Better yet, the next time you run into an optimist, just slap him in the face.
...that encourages businesses to screw consumers over. A class action lawsuit is sometimes the only way to make a company feel any pain for their actions. The government either doesn't care enough or doesn't levy fines large enough for the business to take notice. You might have a great lawyer, but as an individual you aren't going to get a judgement or settlement large enough to make the company change their business practices.
Score 1 for the consumers? No, score 1 for the lawyers who walked away with millions
What, so you want to leave the money in the hands of the business that screwed you over? Thats frikkin genius. If it comes down to negligent/criminal executives having the money or giving it to someone who doesn't need it, I'd give it to Warren Buffet. So what if the lawyers get most of the money; they *are* the ones doing all of the work in the lawsuit, and if they don't win they don't get anything.
They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not letting the world know of his existence. Well the devil must be pretty envious right now, because companies have convinced gullible voters that eliminating a company's reponsibility for their actions is somehow beneficial to consumers.
If everyone took the same 'principled stand' that you have, the record companies would just keep breaking the law and keep using their monopoly to overcharge for their products. Way to go, man.
Education: Yes. If you have kids, pay for their school yourself. If you can't afford it, rely on charity or don't have kids.
What, you don't think that having an educated population is in your best interests?
I don't think he's trolling, even though he claims he is. It's perfectly true: MA residents had the opportunity to boot the confiscatory income tax.
Why, when the income tax is arguably the fairest tax of all?
Personally, I'd much rather pay a sales tax, as I am in charge of what I buy
I'd rather you not, as only having a sales tax is very unfair. Lets say I'm a single guy and I make $35k a year. My married friend with 4 kids also makes $35k a year. Now, which of us is going to have to spend more money? Why should he be forced to pay more in taxes because he has a family?
than have an income forcibly taken from me with little accountability to how it is spent.
Are you under 18? A felon? An immigrant who hasn't obtained his citizenship yet? Haven't lived long enough in your current state to establish residency? None of the above? Then whats to stop you from voting or running for office?
We're conditioned to think in terms of "take home pay" as if government really "deserves" the rest of what we earn.
Taxes aren't the problem, people who are self-centered and greedy are the problem. The government doesn't take money from you to hoard it for its own purposes, its for you and the society you live in.
Some good movies use them, but a whole lot of bad movies depend upon them. Plus, the more you use something, the less effective it is. Would you sit up and take notice if a rapper is cussing a blue streak throughout a song? Probably not. But if your grandma were to drop an f-bomb out of the blue, you probably would.
And the theory afoot amongst fellow Republicans who understand the issue is that electronic voting is a conspiracy by the Democrats to rig elections.
How does that work, since the companies are owned by Republicans?
...he's an ALJ for the Social Security Administration and does hearings on disability benefits. Usually claimants are notified in the mail of the outcome of the hearing, but he tells paranoid schizophrenics right away. Its also one of the reasons why he has an unlisted phone number. :)
I didn't look at your site, but I hope you are doing well personally and with your work.
As someone once said:
Democrats tax and spend.
Republicans borrow and spend.
I disagree, NPR can be very biased in which facts they choose to talk about.
As I and others have said before: name one source of media that is consistently less biased than NPR. Put up or shut up.
I've listened to some of thier discussions on guns and they are quite mis-informed almost to the point of outright lieing.
Ah, I see. They must be biased because they don't share your bias?
Yes, I'm talking about being asked if he had sexual relations with her and he said no. Seing that it was relevent
Since you missed it the first time: whatever happened between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton is irrelevant to what happened to what happened between Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. Monica and Paula never met, never worked in the same office, and so on. Ir-frikkin-relevant.
was perjury and was thus disbarred
Bzzzt, wrong. Since it wasn't relevant, it can't be perjury even if he lied through his teeth, but its impossible to prove that he lied rather than misunderstanding the courts definition of exactly what "sexual relations" amounted to. Here's a nice article debunking the various right wing poppycock on the subject.
As for your links, notice that neither one even mentioned perjury, not even the one with the animated elephant on the page. The Arkansas Supreme Court disbarred him for misleading testimony, which is very weak considering that this was a witch hunt. Clinton had plenty of grounds to challenge it, but he made an agreement to get the whole situation over and done with.
While Clinton continually calimed it to not be perjury most other judges and lawyers said it was.
Obviously you need to talk to some smarter lawyers and judges.
Most people call getting a blow job sexual ralations and saying "I didn't" to mean, well you didn't. I think there is ample proof that he ejaculated by her ministrations - once more what the vast majority of people consider sexual relations (to put it another way, would you consider your signifigant other being orally stimulated by other people to be ok and not sexual relations? I bet not).
Which is why the lawyers argued over the definition for some time. Which is why its easy for Clinton to say he misunderstood the courts definition (and its even arguable that receiving a BJ fit said definition). Which is why its impossible to prove that he lied. Remember that lawyers can split hairs with the best of them, and Clinton was a lawyer for 25 years.
Ultimatly no matter what you do there will be a bias
I never said that NPR didn't have any bias. But as others have said: name some that have less than NPR. Other than maybe the Associated Press, you aren't going to find one in this country.
Nor have I ever, nor will I ever, claim to be unbiased.
Bully for you. But if you're going to be biased, you might want to get the facts straight at least...
Much as they ignored Clinton's felony perjury and focused on sex.
If you're talking about the 'sexual relations' fiasco, it wasn't perjury, much less a felony. In fact you can't even prove what he said in court was a lie. For a statement to be perjury, it has to be relevant. Which is exactly how the judge ruled: wether or not he lied about the blow job, it was irrelevant to the rest of the case.
I agree they are greedy little fucks, but they are doing a piss poor job of sucking up to the administration or the republicans.
I wouldn't say that. The chief weapons inspector was just testifying in the Senate that Iraq doesn't have any WMD's, but what does the media decide to harp on? The so called "Dean scream".
But we could compare anecdotes all day. What I really think it comes down to, is: the vast majority of American media doesn't cover the news, they present it. They couldn't just state the facts and What Really Happened to save their lives; every story is presented with spin and bias.
Which is why its soooooo nice listening to NPR, because unless they're interviewing someone or doing investigative reporting, they just state the facts.
I don't listen to NPR on a daily basis, so no idea. Which is probably the same for 99% of the conservatives who bitch about the show.
- Oh, so just because he's a journalist, he's not allowed to state an opinion? Even off the air, away from his show?
Again, did I say that?What was your point then?
if someone says that NPR is the least biased news source out there, I'd question their view point or suggest that they are mistaken.
As the other guy said: name one thats better.
Nice link. But that is nicely countered by the fact that media companies are, in general, Greedy Little Fucks. And by sucking up to the very deregulation friendly administration and FCC, they might be able to expand their markets past the current cap.
So they have a very strong incentive to Play Nice the Republicans in the White House and Congress.
Meanwhile, a post I wrote this morning defending FoxNews--often accused of being biased toward the right for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded down as "Off-topic."
Probably because there is no "-1, Idiot" mod. Because there is no "liberal bias" in the media, and never has been. None. Nadda. Zip. This fallacy is based around two things: ignoring conservative media (Rush, Drudge), and only looking at "liberal" columnists in newspapers while ignoring the conservative ones who are on the same page. So because the NY Times prints Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert, it must be a liberal paper, despite the fact that the print the scribes of the hawk William Safire and the conservative David Brooks.
That doesn't even make sense. If a private station must worry about not offending sides, that would give it even more incentive to be non-biased.
Of course it makes sense, to anyone with any intelligence. If you're a non-profit, you don't have to worry about offending a company that pays you to air their commercials. See your favorite news station for a perfect example. But if you are a commercial news entity, that means you compete for ratings. Which, in todays media, means you hype stories and look for scandals to report on. i.e. Gore and the myths of his fibbing, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence, Quayle and the potatoe thing, etc etc.
NPR gets major contributions from left-leaning entrepeneurs.
So? I'm sure they get plenty of donations from conservatives who are also tired of American media's love of presenting the news rather than covering it.
which makes one wonder why we still have to pay for them to be on the air when they don't need us to keep them afloat.
1) thats not true, and 2) donating money gives you a say in what kind of programming they have. They'll probably lose a lot of donations from people having exactly your attitude, and non-profit broadcasting is an expensive busiiness to be in. PBS especially is having to go through a very expensive conversion to HDTV equipment. As for getting a say, do you like jazz? Ask them to have more jazz programs when you send them your pledge. Want more shows like Car Talk? Ask them to do a show with some guys from Tech TV.
NPR and PBS are Good Things, and I wish more people would support them.
they are only leftist if you define "anything in disagreement with the current head of state is left wing and wrong."
Unless of course they're talking about a Democrat, in which case the reverse applies.
NPR usually gets critiqued for their viewpoint selection. In other words, they choose the people they agree with to appear.
What, so NPR can't interview anyone without also interviewing someone at the same time that has an opposing viewpoint? I guess that makes them a bed of right wing bigots since they just had an economist on who thinks that the Bush tax cuts are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR).
Oh, so just because he's a journalist, he's not allowed to state an opinion? Even off the air, away from his show?
are there only 5000 small businesses out there?
i think not.
Maybe they mean there are only 5000 small businesses that would actually lose money over this.
Duh.
The think the jerkies here forget is, Apple is an OEM. If the motherboard on your Latitude goes to shit, they aren't going to buy a Presario motherboard from HP to replace it. An OEM is going to replace a bad with one of is own, not from some random smoe company.
Duh.
he ipod mini is a worst of both worlds solution, its a shitty hard drive player, not a good flash player. People buy flash players to excercise with or when they need really high battery life, otherwise there is really no reason to have on as they cost more and do less.
What the heck are you talking about? Maybe you live in an aparment complex filled with marathon runners training for the olympics, but 99% of the population does not exersize for more than 8 hours at a time. "Worst of both worlds" indeed.