Reposting an AC for everyone's benefit: "Not that anybody will probably see this as the article is at the bottom of Slashdot, BUT - a group of individuals in my hometown (who were hearing impaired) had a lawsuit against a movie theater for not close captioning all of the films that they show. The films are not printed with close captioning embedded on them, so how did they plan on one theater being able to do this? In my opinion, this is just another example of somebody taking advantage of large businesses."
How did it turn out? What legal basis did they use, in regards to the ADA certainly, but what specifically? What comments did the judge make about it?
So if the W3C standards also insisted all websites must be written with FrontPage, you'd still support them?
The real question here isn't whether something is possible, or easy, or helpful. It is whether the government has the right and authority to force businesses to act in accordance with political correctness.
Hey, that's cool. I actually just have another account I use at home. But I only use it about once a month or so.
But, Yeah, Pig Hogger probably hates Jews, for whatever reason. The world is full of hatred. As for me, I simply don't really care one way or the other for most groups of people. My friends are based on personal details, not what group they are part of. For instance one of my friends has friends who are rabbis, but he doesn't care for the "European Jews", and of course the rabbis are Semitic. So, even though I don't consider myself racist, I don't use it as a condition of friendship either. More or less, everyone has a right to their own opinion, they just aren't supposed to attack anyone else because of it.
Of course there are levels of this I don't understand. I was never brought up to hate groups of people, so when he mentioned this, it was all new to me. As I said in my original post, the thing Hitler twisted was that many of the financial groups that were hurting Germany were headed by Jews, but he ignored that many were headed by Christians or athiests. Now, I don't care for the financial groups, because they would sell their own mothers into slavery for a profit, but I won't lump all others into that category just to make a statement or get support.
The only valid point Pig Hogger makes is that the brand of Anti-Semitism is thrown around much too freely. Basically the entire range of political-incorrectness (Rasicm, Sexism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Meat-eaters, etc.) is accused for really minor, non-issue things. If someone says something that isn't politically correct, and it offends some group of hyper-sensitive activists that don't represent 99% of the people they claim to represent, a label is applied to that person, and he or she gets in trouble. So while I agree Pig Hogger more than likely hates Jews, I usually stop listening to someone's argument when the Anti-Semitism label, or any of the others above, is mentioned. In this case I kept listening, and gave my own reply. It is better to have dialogue after all.
No, just get that laser from Real Genius, and drill a 5-foot hole through the whole damned contraption. That should pretty well take it out of commission.
My first gut response to this line is that most Jews are not Semitic. Most Jews are Caucasian. Most Arabs are Semitic. So calling someone anti-Semitic for not favoring Isreal over the other Middle East countries is ass-backwards.
"But you claim that Israel's actions are an ex post facto justification for the wholesale murder and extermination of six million innocents? "
I'm not saying you are wrong here, because I don't know what he intended, but I read his sig differently. You agree that "Israel's actions have been reprehensible." So do you not agree that if Adolf Hitler were to see Israel's actions today, than he would "see plenty of justification" for his own actions 60 years ago? You don't see the justification, but he would.
As for my viewpoint, Hitler made the wrong connection. Germany was treated very poorly after World War I, and the international financial groups were a large part of that. They made huge profits from this. Unfortunately, many of the financial groups were headed by Jews, just as today. Many others were headed by Christians or athiests, just as today. He fanned the outrage against the treatment of Germany, blamed it on the financial groups, but used the existing bigotry against Jews to focus on just that one point: It's the Jews' fault. He painted all Jews as bad, and was able to ride the public sentiment into absolute power.
Of course Hitler was simply a power hungry madman, but he would see justification for his own actions if he witnessed Israel's actions of the last couple years.
And, no this is not meant to support Hitler, Nazi-ism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Isrealism, Jews, Arabs, Germans, financiers, or Pig Hogger. Just wanted to open the debate to a third possiblity.
You had needles? When I was a kid, we had to catch porcupines and use their quills. And we could only catch them at night because they're nocturnal, but we didn't even have candles to see with. First we had to catch dozens of fireflys and keep them in glass jars.
Two points. The economy started to go in the toilet in early 2000, when the dotcom bubble burst. Clinton was still president then. Bush was chastised by democrats by daring to say "recession" during the campaign.
And the war and debt would not have happened if you bleeding hearts hadn't let terrorists move into America, take flying lessons, stay here on expired visas, and hijack several planes.
It would take a book to respond to all the idiotic stuff in your posts. But I will try be brief.
You say: First off in financial planning they teach you to legally avoid all possible taxes. Otherwise you're just throwing your money away.
But you also said before that we should all happily pay taxes to help the poor unfortunate people who need Uncle Sam's assistance to live. So why would you of all people avoid your social responsibility. Like I said, you want to be liberal with others' paychecks.
Next, your tax system is fatally flawed. If everyone payed this sales tax on everything, then the rich would be able to buy everything they do now, and the poor would have to pay more than they do now, just to cover the tax. Oh, but maybe you make up for that with all your welfare plans for them, to keep them on the government dole. And if the money from taxes were distributed evenly, "based on population" what would be the point. The rural areas would get no funding, because there are only a few people per square mile. The New York metro area would get nearly 10% of the total, while most states would get less than 1%. People in Kansas need highways and bridges too.
Next topic. You make a shitload of money. OK. But you live in Oklahoma so you can have a high standard of living without having to make a lot of money. Which is it?
Oh, and good guess that a random Slashdotter is a white male between the ages of 20 and 40. You must be a genius to figure that one out.
Do you keep your collection of friends on the mantle, or are they spread across the front lawn, holding lanterns? Despite what you think, not all conservatives are white, with only white friends and family. My friends and family are probably more ethnically diverse than yours, honestly.
And personally, I stopped listening to talk radio long ago because of your exact point. Rush and the rest believe that the world is a cookie cutter playset, and that everything they like really is sugarcoated. Of course minorities have a harder time succeeding in the US. Everyone knows that is true. But making a blatantly racist policy of accepting minorities to fill positions that would have otherwise gone to more-credentialed white men is not the answer.
Here is my response to arguments for and against affirmative action for college applicants: Talk to all 'disadvantaged' applicants. Ask why they want to go to college. See which ones really understand it is the only path up from poverty. See which ones are motivated to succeed in college, even while working full time to afford tuition or books. Make that motivation a high factor in the selection process. Notice that there is no racial limit to who can be motivated. But there will be a boost in the numbers of minorities vs a strictly non-affirmative action policy. And who could complain? Certainly legal challanges would have a hard time finding a crack in the reasoning of it. Current affirmative action rules are being ruled unconstitutional because they are racist or sexist. This would accomplish the same goal, and be fair. Colleges do want motivated students right? Not just children who want to use the bandwidth for mp3s.;^)
I don't want 3% more in my paycheck. Taxes are over 30%, (fed, state, fica) and I would like about 25% back. I don't think anyone making under $100,000 should even pay federal taxes, and since I'm in that category I want all that back. And Social Security will be gone soon, as the babyboomers retire over the next couple decades, so I want that back to put into my modest 401(k) plan.
Finally, you are right, I do get financial support from the government. I get a monthly check from the VA (direct deposit actually), because during my enlistment I became partially disabled. Not in combat, no Purple Heart or nothing, just one of those things that happen to some people, tough luck for me. No, I wasn't drunk, or driving, or being stupid; it wasn't even traffic, alcohol/drug, or idiocy related. And I get my medication for free, because I am at the 30% disabled level. If giving this up meant having no federal taxes taken out, I would choose that in a heartbeat. So, haha, the joke's on you. Your taxes are paying for me, and my medicine, and I personally don't think you should have to. With my insurance coverage I could afford the medicine, and come out well ahead from a bigger paycheck, even after the disability compensation is stopped.
But I am only getting what the government realizes is due to me, same as any other disability compensation case in the private world. Surely you can't fault me for that. Since after all, I am one of those unfortunate ones who, through no fault of my own, am less able to compete in the job market due to my disability.
Well, I guess this was a longer response than I wanted, but like I said, what you don't know about my views could fill a book.
You got his real character with that. I just finished reading his reply, and the last line ties it up neatly.
To paraphrase: I, BoomerSooner, make enough money, I can afford to find the loopholes to hide my income, so I only pay a small percentage of my actual income in taxes. So let it remain at 3% of my actual income, rather than dropping it to 2%, because I care.
Don't you just love the "liberal democrats" with a couple million in their accounts, who say things like this "when I save 15k in taxes it simply sits in my money market...." Rather than giving the money to the needy, as he wants us to do from our friggin paycheck, he won't even do that with money he can afford to leave in his "money market". Sorry, I don't have a money market to shop at. I just have a paycheck to live off of. So keep your bleeding-heart thievery away from it.
His real reason for wanting a large federal government is of course revealed in the last line. "I make enough money to be a republican I just have a heart, a degree in finance and a minor in economics." He is rich, because he is in the financial industry. If he hates the condition of where he lives, why doesn't he move? What is the tax rate in Oklahoma? Which large banks are based there because of favorable tax-breaks? If the federal government kept its hands out of my pocket, there would be less money flowing through whatever bank he works for (or owns), and he would be less rich than now.
All the conservative-bashing aside, BoomerSooner is just a rich bastard who knows how to milk the system, and wants to be liberal with everyone else's paycheck.
First off, it is not a lie. I can see your reasons for skepticism, but this is an accurate depiction of the situation. And I never said it makes me a good person. I just said this is how I have managed to make good.
Secondly, I don't care for my wife "because [I am] human". I care for my wife because I love her. Despite the fact that I am human, I don't care for all the others in the world with sad stories like mine. I don't care because I don't love those people, since I have never met them. I don't care if you have medicine, I don't care if your parents and grandparents have medicine. Since I have never met you, I don't really care what happens to you, in a general way. I don't want you to be a victim of crime, disease, war, or meteor strike. But if it happens, well that's tough. It could happen to me, well that's tough as well.
Third, I call thieves those who want to take more of my money to give you, your parents, your grand-parents, and every rapist and murderer in prison free medicine of the highest caliber. You have no right to medicine. It is not in the Constitution of the United States, unlike the rights to petition the government and to keep and bear arms. The government is not going to make my life easier by taking my money, even if they PROMISE to pay for my wife's medicine, so I don't have to pay thousands of dollars in insurance. The government would first insist my wife see an 'approved' doctor, who would prescribe the bare minimum pain relief possible, that being Extra-strength Tylenol. (Since she isn't a senior citizen in the AARP, and isn't in prison with the support of every bleeding-heart liberl, she would not get the highest caliber of medicine I mentioned above.) If you think HMO's are bad, think about how bad a government run HMO would be. Take a look at the health news on BBC for a sample. They are moving to giving "NHS hospitals greater freedom from government control...." Hmmmmmm, why would they do that?
If you want to give all your paycheck to the government to feed the hungry children and buy drugs for the elderly, you can. But keep your theivin' hands out of my wallet.
I worked hard to get a decent job to support my family. I'm paying thousands of dollars a year for real health insurance so my wife can have real medical help. It's not my fault that many people didn't do the same thing. They splurged on vacations to Disneyland, new cars, steaks, and everything else.
I don't want to pay a damn dollar to get anything for them. Just as I don't expect anyone to get anything for me. If I lose my job, well, I'll get another. I'm putting money into retirement plans because I doubt if I will even get Social Security when I retire, it will be long gone by then. Why should I want others sucking up my money for their lack of planning or effort?
And for the record, my wife has scoliosis, or curvature of the spine. She's on pain medicine that could drop a rhino, and the insurance pays a lot for it. The government doesn't pay anything. I would like to keep it that way, as they would totally mess it up if they got in the loop. After all, when did the government ever run anything well for long?
PS. The RIAA and MPAA put most of their campaign contributions in the pockets of those "liberal democrats" who you side with. How does being a hypocrit feel?
Mr Z said "or a fixed "wormhole" that mousing into pops you over to the other desktop"
That would be a copyright violation of the concept of going off one side of a screen, to reappear at the opposite side of a screen. This implementation would use two seperate screens, but it is obviously built on the technology pioneered in PacMan. Wacka-wacka-wacka!
Right, he credited Cage as author or co-author or inspired by or somesuch. Because he has a sense of humor. Cage is dead, so Batt couldn't ask him personally if he was OK with it. And I doubt if he thought it would be appropriate to ask the family members, because it would just remind them the guy is dead. The last alternative is to ask the lawyers for the estate, and you can imagine how they would have mangled it. Wait, you don't have to imagine it at all. The did exactly what Batt avoided. Stupid legalese arguments about who owns the lack of sound.
What if Batt had a different idea. Something other than only playing one minute of silence, and crediting a dead guy who played 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. But instead play a C note for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, and credit Cage in the same way. After all, Cage may have intended to do a whole series of pieces, each 4 min 33 sec, with a different note. He just started out with the silent note because he wanted to.
So if Batt had played a C note for 4:33, and credited Cage, more as a tribute than anything else, would you still argue the same thing?
Well then I will go tell my friend's father to stop doing that, because he has been burning his mouth and throat severely for the last 40 years.
Maybe the fact he smokes Pall Mall Non-filtered has something to do with it.;^)
Honestly, I don't know the details of scalding coffee, but I saw him pour a cup of coffee within 5 minutes of it getting done, and drink it. Slowly. I never said he gulped it down. Maybe it's just a matter of having a good layer of saliva in your mouth, and taking very small sips for a while. But if you served him warm coffee in a restaurant, he would not be happy. Coffee is supposed to be hot.
On a side note, have you ever placed a lit match in your mouth. As long as your mouth is wet, and you breathe in, it doesn't burn. Stupid trick I learned as a teenager.
I know several people who drink coffee that was just percolating in the pot. That puts it around the boiling point of water. I asked a few people about the lawsuit, and I never found one that felt it was justified. Everyone said hot coffee had better be damn hot when it's poured, as otherwise it turns into lukewarm crud within 10 minutes.
If I was driving a Porche at 150mph and crashed after failing to make follow a curve in the road, should I be able to sue because the car is made to go too fast?
Everyone knows it was the old lady's fault she got burned. She put the coffee cup between her legs and removed the cover, despite knowing how hot McDonald's coffee always is. Sheer idiocy is not supposed to be cart blanche to get money from large corporations. Prior lawsuits notwithstanding, there was no way that is an acceptable behavior in an industrialized nation. Otherwise why would companies even offer products that may possibly make them responsible for some idiot's actions?
As well as getting sim-denied medical bill compensation, you should also get sim-bitch-slapped. Of course you could still sim-sue, but hopefully the sim-judges are not on sim-crack, and sim-throw the sim-case out the sim-window.
They didn't 'give us the right' to do anything. If we have 'the right to rail on them' now, we had that same right before they agreed to product placement. And by the way, they can only include products from companies that agree to allow them to do so. If Burger King doesn't let them offer the Whopper, they can't add it to the game.
Hell, I'd set my "Willing to Moderate" flag if I had a guarantee of getting a bot like that. As I posted above a few minutes ago, why even buy a CD from anyone who can only have one good song?
How about a starting a list of groups that have entire CDs/tapes/albums of Good Songs. I'll start with: Led Zepellin AC/DC Fleetwood Mac Garth Brooks Babylon AD Guns & Roses Reba Iron Maiden Manowar Weird Al Huey Lewis
I still don't understand why anyone would want to listen to the "one catchy song" of any group/singer, if everything else that group/singer puts out is crap. The CDs and tapes I bought generally have all good songs.
While this means I don't have any Britney Spears disks, I don't think I am missing anything by being discriminatory in this manner.
I doubt that the kid in Who's the Boss wrote his part either. It was just that he 'seemed' gay. Don't you know any gay men that you can 'just tell' that they are gay? I do.
And to make it clear, this isn't a gay bashing thing. It's just pointing out the state of the matter.
But nothing says he HAS to struggle with the self-pity. He could just be wallowing in it, with apathetic people simply waiting for him to die. There doen't need to be a struggle, either within the dying king, or between the king and worried family/servants, or between possible successors.
As the parent poster said, it would be very boring.
It would make for a great movie that 30 people would actually watch. There are artsy type movies that cause such confusion in the viewers' minds, and the artsy type people love them. But I doubt many such artsy type people would be caught dead at a Star Trek movie.
I could be wrong, but either way it's a good discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Reposting an AC for everyone's benefit:
"Not that anybody will probably see this as the article is at the bottom of Slashdot, BUT - a group of individuals in my hometown (who were hearing impaired) had a lawsuit against a movie theater for not close captioning all of the films that they show. The films are not printed with close captioning embedded on them, so how did they plan on one theater being able to do this? In my opinion, this is just another example of somebody taking advantage of large businesses."
How did it turn out?
What legal basis did they use, in regards to the ADA certainly, but what specifically?
What comments did the judge make about it?
So if the W3C standards also insisted all websites must be written with FrontPage, you'd still support them?
The real question here isn't whether something is possible, or easy, or helpful. It is whether the government has the right and authority to force businesses to act in accordance with political correctness.
Hey, that's cool. I actually just have another account I use at home. But I only use it about once a month or so.
But, Yeah, Pig Hogger probably hates Jews, for whatever reason. The world is full of hatred. As for me, I simply don't really care one way or the other for most groups of people. My friends are based on personal details, not what group they are part of. For instance one of my friends has friends who are rabbis, but he doesn't care for the "European Jews", and of course the rabbis are Semitic. So, even though I don't consider myself racist, I don't use it as a condition of friendship either. More or less, everyone has a right to their own opinion, they just aren't supposed to attack anyone else because of it.
Of course there are levels of this I don't understand. I was never brought up to hate groups of people, so when he mentioned this, it was all new to me. As I said in my original post, the thing Hitler twisted was that many of the financial groups that were hurting Germany were headed by Jews, but he ignored that many were headed by Christians or athiests. Now, I don't care for the financial groups, because they would sell their own mothers into slavery for a profit, but I won't lump all others into that category just to make a statement or get support.
The only valid point Pig Hogger makes is that the brand of Anti-Semitism is thrown around much too freely. Basically the entire range of political-incorrectness (Rasicm, Sexism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Meat-eaters, etc.) is accused for really minor, non-issue things. If someone says something that isn't politically correct, and it offends some group of hyper-sensitive activists that don't represent 99% of the people they claim to represent, a label is applied to that person, and he or she gets in trouble. So while I agree Pig Hogger more than likely hates Jews, I usually stop listening to someone's argument when the Anti-Semitism label, or any of the others above, is mentioned. In this case I kept listening, and gave my own reply. It is better to have dialogue after all.
No, just get that laser from Real Genius, and drill a 5-foot hole through the whole damned contraption. That should pretty well take it out of commission.
"First gut response: You anti-Semitic scumbag. "
My first gut response to this line is that most Jews are not Semitic. Most Jews are Caucasian. Most Arabs are Semitic. So calling someone anti-Semitic for not favoring Isreal over the other Middle East countries is ass-backwards.
"But you claim that Israel's actions are an ex post facto justification for the wholesale murder and extermination of six million innocents? "
I'm not saying you are wrong here, because I don't know what he intended, but I read his sig differently. You agree that "Israel's actions have been reprehensible." So do you not agree that if Adolf Hitler were to see Israel's actions today, than he would "see plenty of justification" for his own actions 60 years ago? You don't see the justification, but he would.
As for my viewpoint, Hitler made the wrong connection. Germany was treated very poorly after World War I, and the international financial groups were a large part of that. They made huge profits from this. Unfortunately, many of the financial groups were headed by Jews, just as today. Many others were headed by Christians or athiests, just as today. He fanned the outrage against the treatment of Germany, blamed it on the financial groups, but used the existing bigotry against Jews to focus on just that one point: It's the Jews' fault. He painted all Jews as bad, and was able to ride the public sentiment into absolute power.
Of course Hitler was simply a power hungry madman, but he would see justification for his own actions if he witnessed Israel's actions of the last couple years.
And, no this is not meant to support Hitler, Nazi-ism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Isrealism, Jews, Arabs, Germans, financiers, or Pig Hogger. Just wanted to open the debate to a third possiblity.
You had needles? When I was a kid, we had to catch porcupines and use their quills. And we could only catch them at night because they're nocturnal, but we didn't even have candles to see with. First we had to catch dozens of fireflys and keep them in glass jars.
Two points. The economy started to go in the toilet in early 2000, when the dotcom bubble burst. Clinton was still president then. Bush was chastised by democrats by daring to say "recession" during the campaign.
And the war and debt would not have happened if you bleeding hearts hadn't let terrorists move into America, take flying lessons, stay here on expired visas, and hijack several planes.
It would take a book to respond to all the idiotic stuff in your posts. But I will try be brief.
;^)
You say: First off in financial planning they teach you to legally avoid all possible taxes. Otherwise you're just throwing your money away.
But you also said before that we should all happily pay taxes to help the poor unfortunate people who need Uncle Sam's assistance to live. So why would you of all people avoid your social responsibility. Like I said, you want to be liberal with others' paychecks.
Next, your tax system is fatally flawed. If everyone payed this sales tax on everything, then the rich would be able to buy everything they do now, and the poor would have to pay more than they do now, just to cover the tax. Oh, but maybe you make up for that with all your welfare plans for them, to keep them on the government dole. And if the money from taxes were distributed evenly, "based on population" what would be the point. The rural areas would get no funding, because there are only a few people per square mile. The New York metro area would get nearly 10% of the total, while most states would get less than 1%. People in Kansas need highways and bridges too.
Next topic. You make a shitload of money. OK. But you live in Oklahoma so you can have a high standard of living without having to make a lot of money. Which is it?
Oh, and good guess that a random Slashdotter is a white male between the ages of 20 and 40. You must be a genius to figure that one out.
Do you keep your collection of friends on the mantle, or are they spread across the front lawn, holding lanterns? Despite what you think, not all conservatives are white, with only white friends and family. My friends and family are probably more ethnically diverse than yours, honestly.
And personally, I stopped listening to talk radio long ago because of your exact point. Rush and the rest believe that the world is a cookie cutter playset, and that everything they like really is sugarcoated. Of course minorities have a harder time succeeding in the US. Everyone knows that is true. But making a blatantly racist policy of accepting minorities to fill positions that would have otherwise gone to more-credentialed white men is not the answer.
Here is my response to arguments for and against affirmative action for college applicants: Talk to all 'disadvantaged' applicants. Ask why they want to go to college. See which ones really understand it is the only path up from poverty. See which ones are motivated to succeed in college, even while working full time to afford tuition or books. Make that motivation a high factor in the selection process. Notice that there is no racial limit to who can be motivated. But there will be a boost in the numbers of minorities vs a strictly non-affirmative action policy. And who could complain? Certainly legal challanges would have a hard time finding a crack in the reasoning of it. Current affirmative action rules are being ruled unconstitutional because they are racist or sexist. This would accomplish the same goal, and be fair. Colleges do want motivated students right? Not just children who want to use the bandwidth for mp3s.
I don't want 3% more in my paycheck. Taxes are over 30%, (fed, state, fica) and I would like about 25% back. I don't think anyone making under $100,000 should even pay federal taxes, and since I'm in that category I want all that back. And Social Security will be gone soon, as the babyboomers retire over the next couple decades, so I want that back to put into my modest 401(k) plan.
Finally, you are right, I do get financial support from the government. I get a monthly check from the VA (direct deposit actually), because during my enlistment I became partially disabled. Not in combat, no Purple Heart or nothing, just one of those things that happen to some people, tough luck for me. No, I wasn't drunk, or driving, or being stupid; it wasn't even traffic, alcohol/drug, or idiocy related. And I get my medication for free, because I am at the 30% disabled level. If giving this up meant having no federal taxes taken out, I would choose that in a heartbeat. So, haha, the joke's on you. Your taxes are paying for me, and my medicine, and I personally don't think you should have to. With my insurance coverage I could afford the medicine, and come out well ahead from a bigger paycheck, even after the disability compensation is stopped.
But I am only getting what the government realizes is due to me, same as any other disability compensation case in the private world. Surely you can't fault me for that. Since after all, I am one of those unfortunate ones who, through no fault of my own, am less able to compete in the job market due to my disability.
Well, I guess this was a longer response than I wanted, but like I said, what you don't know about my views could fill a book.
You got his real character with that. I just finished reading his reply, and the last line ties it up neatly.
...." Rather than giving the money to the needy, as he wants us to do from our friggin paycheck, he won't even do that with money he can afford to leave in his "money market". Sorry, I don't have a money market to shop at. I just have a paycheck to live off of. So keep your bleeding-heart thievery away from it.
To paraphrase: I, BoomerSooner, make enough money, I can afford to find the loopholes to hide my income, so I only pay a small percentage of my actual income in taxes. So let it remain at 3% of my actual income, rather than dropping it to 2%, because I care.
Don't you just love the "liberal democrats" with a couple million in their accounts, who say things like this "when I save 15k in taxes it simply sits in my money market
His real reason for wanting a large federal government is of course revealed in the last line. "I make enough money to be a republican I just have a heart, a degree in finance and a minor in economics." He is rich, because he is in the financial industry. If he hates the condition of where he lives, why doesn't he move? What is the tax rate in Oklahoma? Which large banks are based there because of favorable tax-breaks? If the federal government kept its hands out of my pocket, there would be less money flowing through whatever bank he works for (or owns), and he would be less rich than now.
All the conservative-bashing aside, BoomerSooner is just a rich bastard who knows how to milk the system, and wants to be liberal with everyone else's paycheck.
First off, it is not a lie. I can see your reasons for skepticism, but this is an accurate depiction of the situation. And I never said it makes me a good person. I just said this is how I have managed to make good.
...." Hmmmmmm, why would they do that?
Secondly, I don't care for my wife "because [I am] human". I care for my wife because I love her. Despite the fact that I am human, I don't care for all the others in the world with sad stories like mine. I don't care because I don't love those people, since I have never met them. I don't care if you have medicine, I don't care if your parents and grandparents have medicine. Since I have never met you, I don't really care what happens to you, in a general way. I don't want you to be a victim of crime, disease, war, or meteor strike. But if it happens, well that's tough. It could happen to me, well that's tough as well.
Third, I call thieves those who want to take more of my money to give you, your parents, your grand-parents, and every rapist and murderer in prison free medicine of the highest caliber. You have no right to medicine. It is not in the Constitution of the United States, unlike the rights to petition the government and to keep and bear arms. The government is not going to make my life easier by taking my money, even if they PROMISE to pay for my wife's medicine, so I don't have to pay thousands of dollars in insurance. The government would first insist my wife see an 'approved' doctor, who would prescribe the bare minimum pain relief possible, that being Extra-strength Tylenol. (Since she isn't a senior citizen in the AARP, and isn't in prison with the support of every bleeding-heart liberl, she would not get the highest caliber of medicine I mentioned above.) If you think HMO's are bad, think about how bad a government run HMO would be. Take a look at the health news on BBC for a sample. They are moving to giving "NHS hospitals greater freedom from government control
So in summary, who the hell is Edith Wharton?
If you want to give all your paycheck to the government to feed the hungry children and buy drugs for the elderly, you can. But keep your theivin' hands out of my wallet.
I worked hard to get a decent job to support my family. I'm paying thousands of dollars a year for real health insurance so my wife can have real medical help. It's not my fault that many people didn't do the same thing. They splurged on vacations to Disneyland, new cars, steaks, and everything else.
I don't want to pay a damn dollar to get anything for them. Just as I don't expect anyone to get anything for me. If I lose my job, well, I'll get another. I'm putting money into retirement plans because I doubt if I will even get Social Security when I retire, it will be long gone by then. Why should I want others sucking up my money for their lack of planning or effort?
And for the record, my wife has scoliosis, or curvature of the spine. She's on pain medicine that could drop a rhino, and the insurance pays a lot for it. The government doesn't pay anything. I would like to keep it that way, as they would totally mess it up if they got in the loop. After all, when did the government ever run anything well for long?
PS. The RIAA and MPAA put most of their campaign contributions in the pockets of those "liberal democrats" who you side with. How does being a hypocrit feel?
You should send a letter to the RIAA, and explain about this. They probably have never heard about the possibility of P2P helping sales.
;^)
Of course, when the cops arrest you for admitting to music piracy remember, IANAL.
Mr Z said "or a fixed "wormhole" that mousing into pops you over to the other desktop"
That would be a copyright violation of the concept of going off one side of a screen, to reappear at the opposite side of a screen. This implementation would use two seperate screens, but it is obviously built on the technology pioneered in PacMan. Wacka-wacka-wacka!
Right, he credited Cage as author or co-author or inspired by or somesuch. Because he has a sense of humor. Cage is dead, so Batt couldn't ask him personally if he was OK with it. And I doubt if he thought it would be appropriate to ask the family members, because it would just remind them the guy is dead. The last alternative is to ask the lawyers for the estate, and you can imagine how they would have mangled it. Wait, you don't have to imagine it at all. The did exactly what Batt avoided. Stupid legalese arguments about who owns the lack of sound.
What if Batt had a different idea. Something other than only playing one minute of silence, and crediting a dead guy who played 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. But instead play a C note for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, and credit Cage in the same way. After all, Cage may have intended to do a whole series of pieces, each 4 min 33 sec, with a different note. He just started out with the silent note because he wanted to.
So if Batt had played a C note for 4:33, and credited Cage, more as a tribute than anything else, would you still argue the same thing?
Well then I will go tell my friend's father to stop doing that, because he has been burning his mouth and throat severely for the last 40 years.
;^)
Maybe the fact he smokes Pall Mall Non-filtered has something to do with it.
Honestly, I don't know the details of scalding coffee, but I saw him pour a cup of coffee within 5 minutes of it getting done, and drink it. Slowly. I never said he gulped it down. Maybe it's just a matter of having a good layer of saliva in your mouth, and taking very small sips for a while. But if you served him warm coffee in a restaurant, he would not be happy. Coffee is supposed to be hot.
On a side note, have you ever placed a lit match in your mouth. As long as your mouth is wet, and you breathe in, it doesn't burn. Stupid trick I learned as a teenager.
I know several people who drink coffee that was just percolating in the pot. That puts it around the boiling point of water. I asked a few people about the lawsuit, and I never found one that felt it was justified. Everyone said hot coffee had better be damn hot when it's poured, as otherwise it turns into lukewarm crud within 10 minutes.
If I was driving a Porche at 150mph and crashed after failing to make follow a curve in the road, should I be able to sue because the car is made to go too fast?
Everyone knows it was the old lady's fault she got burned. She put the coffee cup between her legs and removed the cover, despite knowing how hot McDonald's coffee always is. Sheer idiocy is not supposed to be cart blanche to get money from large corporations. Prior lawsuits notwithstanding, there was no way that is an acceptable behavior in an industrialized nation. Otherwise why would companies even offer products that may possibly make them responsible for some idiot's actions?
As well as getting sim-denied medical bill compensation, you should also get sim-bitch-slapped. Of course you could still sim-sue, but hopefully the sim-judges are not on sim-crack, and sim-throw the sim-case out the sim-window.
They didn't 'give us the right' to do anything. If we have 'the right to rail on them' now, we had that same right before they agreed to product placement. And by the way, they can only include products from companies that agree to allow them to do so. If Burger King doesn't let them offer the Whopper, they can't add it to the game.
Hell, I'd set my "Willing to Moderate" flag if I had a guarantee of getting a bot like that. As I posted above a few minutes ago, why even buy a CD from anyone who can only have one good song?
How about a starting a list of groups that have entire CDs/tapes/albums of Good Songs. I'll start with:
Led Zepellin
AC/DC
Fleetwood Mac
Garth Brooks
Babylon AD
Guns & Roses
Reba
Iron Maiden
Manowar
Weird Al
Huey Lewis
Additions are welcome.
I still don't understand why anyone would want to listen to the "one catchy song" of any group/singer, if everything else that group/singer puts out is crap. The CDs and tapes I bought generally have all good songs.
While this means I don't have any Britney Spears disks, I don't think I am missing anything by being discriminatory in this manner.
I doubt that the kid in Who's the Boss wrote his part either. It was just that he 'seemed' gay. Don't you know any gay men that you can 'just tell' that they are gay? I do.
And to make it clear, this isn't a gay bashing thing. It's just pointing out the state of the matter.
To quote an anonymous coward:
two words: transparent aluminum.
But they didn't go back in time to ensure tranparent aluminum was invented. They went back in time to steal a whale or two.
Well sure, he did invent the geosynchronus satallite.
I guess one of the other two original ideas was a water-filled membrane used to help relax after a hard day on the moon.
But nothing says he HAS to struggle with the self-pity. He could just be wallowing in it, with apathetic people simply waiting for him to die. There doen't need to be a struggle, either within the dying king, or between the king and worried family/servants, or between possible successors.
As the parent poster said, it would be very boring.
It would make for a great movie that 30 people would actually watch. There are artsy type movies that cause such confusion in the viewers' minds, and the artsy type people love them. But I doubt many such artsy type people would be caught dead at a Star Trek movie.
I could be wrong, but either way it's a good discussion.