Wow, more corrupt than the administration that had secret assassination squads, that kidnapped foreign nationals without a court order and sent them to syria to be tortured, and sent the nation to war based on false intelligence?
Seriously? some guy cheating on his taxes and another guy stealing some money from the government is worse than those things?
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Bush's 2001 tax cut cost 1.2 trillion dollars. How does a 800 billion dollar stimulus package eclipse that?
And for that matter, if the Republicans spend 40 years spending like they found their parents credit card, when do you hold them accountable? When is it finally their fault for their absurd spending? When do you give up on pretending they're fiscally conservative and just admit that they're flat-out lying, and have been since Nixon pulled us out of the last vestiges of the gold standard to pay for 'nam?
If I had an employee who did the opposite of what I told him for 40 years, he'd be fired and I'd make sure he never worked in this town again. Here you are, sticking up for 40 years of excuses in every circumstance.
You must have faith in the Republicans, just as you don't walk into a bear cage without having faith in the bear.
Empirical data tells me that so-called "liberals" are the best bet for a balance budget. Data from two countries over over 25 years shows that they will balance the budget, while so-called "conservatives" will break said budget.
I'm suggesting that these people are partisan hacks who will ignore horrible things when it's "their team", but suddenly find their voice when something significantly less dodgy comes about.
I don't give a fuck about your corrupt politicians. I DO give a fuck that you might grab me without a court order and throw me on a plane to Syria if I visit your country, with the full support of the president.
History still says Obama has a much greater chance of being fiscally prudent than a similar Republican president.
The number 1 and number 2 biggest spenders and debtmongers since the end of WWII were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Had he continued to an 8 year term, the Republicans would have a hattrick.
So where does your faith in the Republicans come from? They haven't been fiscally conservative as long as most of us have been alive. They've been consistently worse than the Democrats for half a century.
Where the FUCK was your high-minded outrage when the CIA under the Bush administration was sending Canadian, Italian, and Swedish citizens to Syria and other nations to be tortured for months?
What's that? You're a partisan hack? Oh, nevermind then.
Losers always blame the media. Oh no, black people don't cause more crime, it's the media! Oh no, Republicans didn't increase spending more than any administration before them, it was the media! Oh no, No Child Left Behind wasn't a status-quo maker, where the best schools got the most money and the worst schools got the least, it was the media!
You know what? Get a platform that you'll actually follow, get a platform that might actually work, get a platform that's internally consistent, and we can talk. Until then, the Republicans under Bush have dug their own grave by not following their platform, by using methods that objectively didn't work, by having a set of ideals that are internally inconsistent, where they want to create laws to subjugate minorities they don't like, but say they're for less government.
Republicans have just been socialists who hate minorities longer than I've even been alive. Reagan was the largest spender and debtor in US history until Bush came around. The first Bush was well on his way until he got booted. If I'm going to vote for socialism(I'm not), I'm going to vote for the guys who don't hate a bunch of random minorities while they're at it.
I'm not talking about this particular instance. Thanks to unscrupulous marketers, I've got to question every single instance where a seemingly large group of people come forward to defend a company's actions.
Frankly, y'all are spoiled by having these stores around. If *I* want to buy a computer, I've got to drive 16 hours round trip, consume almost 200 dollars of gasoline, and find a place to stay for the night. Compared to that, having to say "No, I don't want the service plan, thanks" is a minor annoyance.
This is a bit off-topic, but marketing has totally ruined word-of-mouth.
Ten years, I'd see all these posts like yours saying "There are some unscrupulous employees but corporate is great", and I'd be saying "Ok, there isn't a problem here". Today, I'm saying "Gee, I wonder if these are people paid to say this by a marketing company?"
I wonder if companies realise the damage their unethical tactics are doing to genuine grassroots support?
Also, Democrats have spent significantly less and created significantly less debt than Republicans.
For all this talk of how evil the Democrats are for spending, the #1 and #2 increases in both the federal debt and federal budget, adjusted for inflation, are Bush and Reagan.
So for real Republicans, rather than socialists who hate minorities, the best president is a Democrat. They'll keep the government smaller.
I can speak from experience, the limits they put in place weren't enough to run an electric furnace.
I remember when I was with my last girlfriend who liked keeping balances on bills, during the winter they started threatening to put one of those limiters on her power line. I don't recall the limit, but it was far less than would be required to run her electric furnace. The prospect of her kids freezing to death put her savings into that bill fairly quickly.
I thought it was only the Royalty who was inbreeding.
"Hey guys! We've got a generation of angry men who are feeling downtrodden and oppressed by growing government intervention in our lives and limited financial means. They're taking out their impotent frustration with violent crime. I know! Lets limit their access to the media they like, and reduce their effective disposable income! Oppression ALWAYS works against violent demographics!"
See, in my view, you shouldn't have a couple kids if you can't afford a few hundred dollars to spend on yourself at some point over a few years. You'd have to be cutting the margins way too close for comfort.
Just because you WANT kids, a mortgage, and two cars doesn't mean you can afford it. It certainly doesn't mean that it's responsible to have all those things if you're barely scraping by with such a life.
Of course, I looked at the housing market and realised I couldn't responsibly afford a mortgage, so I rent. Then the housing market collapsed because prices were way too high.
As I've consistently said: Part of being responsible is being responsible enough to be positioned to do the things you want. Doing it even though you can't afford it might be in vogue, but that doesn't mean it's responsible.
I use my GPS for measurement, so the 0.1% precision can be guaranteed, but I'm not positive of the accuracy.
I figure, I'm throwing around 3380lbs of steel at 60mph. I could seriously hurt myself or someone else. Why bother risking speeding tickets? Why bother leaving my safety in the hands of the idiot in front of me?
It's kind of terrifying to me, that somewhere in the world, there's a family of baseball historians, such that a teenage girl would give a flying fuck about how baseball was invented, let alone the '3 strikes' rule.
Essential services are extremely difficult to turn off because of the lethal consequences. Here in Manitoba, they started putting current limiting devices on homes whose power bill is unpaid. This has already resulted in people dying of hypothermia.
If it makes you feel better, I usually keep a huge amount of space in front of me, AND I drive the speed limit, to within.1% of reading.
If someone wants to tailgate me, it's their problem when they get in an accident and the insurance companies find them at-fault for driving dangerously.
If you want to stop people from arguing over semantics and annoyingly correcting each other, I think you'd better head to a site that isn't for nerds. I mean, it's pretty much the raison d'etre for nerds.
What's easier: Opening the control panel and editing the users from there, or opening a google window, entering "add a user linux" and sifting through the various sites until you find something that's actually useful, then finding the terminal on your system and using the command line to edit users from there?
Too many of these ideas come from the viewpoint of someone who already has this information on the top of their head, so it makes sense for them to use the command line.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, more corrupt than the administration that had secret assassination squads, that kidnapped foreign nationals without a court order and sent them to syria to be tortured, and sent the nation to war based on false intelligence?
Seriously? some guy cheating on his taxes and another guy stealing some money from the government is worse than those things?
Give your fucking head a shake, boy.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Bush's 2001 tax cut cost 1.2 trillion dollars. How does a 800 billion dollar stimulus package eclipse that?
And for that matter, if the Republicans spend 40 years spending like they found their parents credit card, when do you hold them accountable? When is it finally their fault for their absurd spending? When do you give up on pretending they're fiscally conservative and just admit that they're flat-out lying, and have been since Nixon pulled us out of the last vestiges of the gold standard to pay for 'nam?
If I had an employee who did the opposite of what I told him for 40 years, he'd be fired and I'd make sure he never worked in this town again. Here you are, sticking up for 40 years of excuses in every circumstance.
Shit, I re-read your comment. What was I replying to?
You must have faith in the Republicans, just as you don't walk into a bear cage without having faith in the bear.
Empirical data tells me that so-called "liberals" are the best bet for a balance budget. Data from two countries over over 25 years shows that they will balance the budget, while so-called "conservatives" will break said budget.
I'm suggesting that these people are partisan hacks who will ignore horrible things when it's "their team", but suddenly find their voice when something significantly less dodgy comes about.
I don't give a fuck about your corrupt politicians. I DO give a fuck that you might grab me without a court order and throw me on a plane to Syria if I visit your country, with the full support of the president.
History still says Obama has a much greater chance of being fiscally prudent than a similar Republican president.
The number 1 and number 2 biggest spenders and debtmongers since the end of WWII were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Had he continued to an 8 year term, the Republicans would have a hattrick.
So where does your faith in the Republicans come from? They haven't been fiscally conservative as long as most of us have been alive. They've been consistently worse than the Democrats for half a century.
Where the FUCK was your high-minded outrage when the CIA under the Bush administration was sending Canadian, Italian, and Swedish citizens to Syria and other nations to be tortured for months?
What's that? You're a partisan hack? Oh, nevermind then.
Losers always blame the media. Oh no, black people don't cause more crime, it's the media! Oh no, Republicans didn't increase spending more than any administration before them, it was the media! Oh no, No Child Left Behind wasn't a status-quo maker, where the best schools got the most money and the worst schools got the least, it was the media!
You know what? Get a platform that you'll actually follow, get a platform that might actually work, get a platform that's internally consistent, and we can talk. Until then, the Republicans under Bush have dug their own grave by not following their platform, by using methods that objectively didn't work, by having a set of ideals that are internally inconsistent, where they want to create laws to subjugate minorities they don't like, but say they're for less government.
Republicans have just been socialists who hate minorities longer than I've even been alive. Reagan was the largest spender and debtor in US history until Bush came around. The first Bush was well on his way until he got booted. If I'm going to vote for socialism(I'm not), I'm going to vote for the guys who don't hate a bunch of random minorities while they're at it.
I'm not talking about this particular instance. Thanks to unscrupulous marketers, I've got to question every single instance where a seemingly large group of people come forward to defend a company's actions.
Frankly, y'all are spoiled by having these stores around. If *I* want to buy a computer, I've got to drive 16 hours round trip, consume almost 200 dollars of gasoline, and find a place to stay for the night. Compared to that, having to say "No, I don't want the service plan, thanks" is a minor annoyance.
This is a bit off-topic, but marketing has totally ruined word-of-mouth.
Ten years, I'd see all these posts like yours saying "There are some unscrupulous employees but corporate is great", and I'd be saying "Ok, there isn't a problem here". Today, I'm saying "Gee, I wonder if these are people paid to say this by a marketing company?"
I wonder if companies realise the damage their unethical tactics are doing to genuine grassroots support?
(Score: -1, Keep facts out of this)
Also, Democrats have spent significantly less and created significantly less debt than Republicans.
For all this talk of how evil the Democrats are for spending, the #1 and #2 increases in both the federal debt and federal budget, adjusted for inflation, are Bush and Reagan.
So for real Republicans, rather than socialists who hate minorities, the best president is a Democrat. They'll keep the government smaller.
I can speak from experience, the limits they put in place weren't enough to run an electric furnace.
I remember when I was with my last girlfriend who liked keeping balances on bills, during the winter they started threatening to put one of those limiters on her power line. I don't recall the limit, but it was far less than would be required to run her electric furnace. The prospect of her kids freezing to death put her savings into that bill fairly quickly.
I thought it was only the Royalty who was inbreeding.
"Hey guys! We've got a generation of angry men who are feeling downtrodden and oppressed by growing government intervention in our lives and limited financial means. They're taking out their impotent frustration with violent crime. I know! Lets limit their access to the media they like, and reduce their effective disposable income! Oppression ALWAYS works against violent demographics!"
See, in my view, you shouldn't have a couple kids if you can't afford a few hundred dollars to spend on yourself at some point over a few years. You'd have to be cutting the margins way too close for comfort.
Just because you WANT kids, a mortgage, and two cars doesn't mean you can afford it. It certainly doesn't mean that it's responsible to have all those things if you're barely scraping by with such a life.
Of course, I looked at the housing market and realised I couldn't responsibly afford a mortgage, so I rent. Then the housing market collapsed because prices were way too high.
As I've consistently said: Part of being responsible is being responsible enough to be positioned to do the things you want. Doing it even though you can't afford it might be in vogue, but that doesn't mean it's responsible.
Somehow I managed to figure it out without a manual or Google, way back in the early '90s.
looking at the AC post, that might be the case.
I use my GPS for measurement, so the 0.1% precision can be guaranteed, but I'm not positive of the accuracy.
I figure, I'm throwing around 3380lbs of steel at 60mph. I could seriously hurt myself or someone else. Why bother risking speeding tickets? Why bother leaving my safety in the hands of the idiot in front of me?
It's kind of terrifying to me, that somewhere in the world, there's a family of baseball historians, such that a teenage girl would give a flying fuck about how baseball was invented, let alone the '3 strikes' rule.
Essential services are extremely difficult to turn off because of the lethal consequences. Here in Manitoba, they started putting current limiting devices on homes whose power bill is unpaid. This has already resulted in people dying of hypothermia.
If it makes you feel better, I usually keep a huge amount of space in front of me, AND I drive the speed limit, to within .1% of reading.
If someone wants to tailgate me, it's their problem when they get in an accident and the insurance companies find them at-fault for driving dangerously.
We sent him to Syria, but they promised with a bow that they wouldn't torture him.
If you want to stop people from arguing over semantics and annoyingly correcting each other, I think you'd better head to a site that isn't for nerds. I mean, it's pretty much the raison d'etre for nerds.
What's funny is, I read "visual basic", and was even more confused.
I dunno, I use songbird now, it doesn't care what OS I run.
What's easier: Opening the control panel and editing the users from there, or opening a google window, entering "add a user linux" and sifting through the various sites until you find something that's actually useful, then finding the terminal on your system and using the command line to edit users from there?
Too many of these ideas come from the viewpoint of someone who already has this information on the top of their head, so it makes sense for them to use the command line.