Now, please do the same for anything on that ripoffreport extortion site. Ooh, and anything ending in ehow.com or answers.yahoo.com or chacha.com or the other endless streams of bullshit content farm crapfests. Those we actually run into all the time, via google. I don't know when the fuck the last time was I ran into a co.cc link of any kind, via google. Probably never.
Agreed. Isn't it supposed to be a Film Patterened Intellectually Disableder?
Anyway, I think more than one of us missed the point in your link to a specs page where they typo'd the name of the product/feature . . . ?
As for the word itself . . . "retarded" is word that was chosen in the medical profession as a kinder and more appropriate way to refer to a certain condition than imbecile, moron, or idiot. We no longer use those three words to refer to people with actual mental retardation, and so we are free to use them to hurl at each other without consequence. Nobody ever calls you to task for insensitively using the word 'idiot' or 'imbecile'. Likewise, since it was decided some time ago that the word 'retarded' no longer applies to actual cases of mental retardation (the appropriate phrase is now "intellectually disabled"), then that opens up the word 'retarded' as free to use, without consequence. If the other three words are appropriate, because they're no longer used to refer to the actual people they once did, then the same has to directly apply to 'retarded'.
Overall, I think I paid around 38% in taxes last year (not including sales taxes and things like property tax). Is that not enough fucking taxes? Just how much more do I need to pay for it to be "fair"? It's not like I'm living in a mansion. I've got family members I could be helping get through school. I've got a mortgage on an average house in an average neighborhood with average guys and their average families. I've got a savings account I'm hoping I can keep putting enough into so I can retire, some day. I've got a budget and have to think carefully about my spending. If I lost my job, I'd be in a bit of a crunch.
I'm a fan of fair taxation, but I'm not a fan of using "tax the rich durp durp!" as an excuse for fiscal responsibility. Taxes bring in such a ludicrous amount of revenue that there's no excuse for the entire country not to be living in a near fucking utopia. The only thing stopping us is the utter corruption and unaccountability for the irresponsibility in government. I can't say I have a problem with anyone fighting strongly against a single point of higher tax, until some sanity is shown in how that revenue is going to be spent.
I think most rational people actually don't mind chipping into the pot, when they can see the fruits of their contributions. You'd have to be a fool to voluntarily hurl your money into a sucking bottomless pit, though.
Also, what we're usually calling "rich" in these discussions is almost always laughably small. I might easily concede that someone earning millions a year is rich, but I'd have a hard time saying the same about someone making $150k or $250k. There's a difference between making enough money to not really have to worry about it and making enough money that you have a solid gold umbrella holder and you use hundred dollar bills to start your kindling in the fireplace.
I'll take fewer public services for less taxes. Right off the bat, I'm ready to give up my social security. I'm sure I can come up with others, if you give me another five seconds to think about it.
If you're spending more than you earn, you have to cut luxuries. Cable television. Maybe even things like internet access. If you are spending (and already owe) a *lot* more than you're spending, you have to start cutting more things. Like the quality of the food you buy, maybe your transportation, maybe even your health care and maybe even your shelter.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that might hurt to cut on a government level. So what? If we can't pay for it, we can't pay for it. It's not magical math.
You know, the more money you owe in relation to your income, the worse your credit score becomes. I don't follow the logic that increasing our deficit increases our reputation and stability. The only confidence to be had in our debt is that we'll continue to incur more and more that we will never actually pay on. But, I guess the world can continue to thrive on an infinite supply of meaningless IOUs.
You're kidding, right? Congress has been dominated by giant pussies for decades, who do whatever the president demands of them. They may bitch and whine and moan, but when it comes down to the voting and the actions, they're less a counterbalancing branch of the government than they are the lapdogs of the president (whichever president it is at the time).
Frankly, it's time to fucking grow up and stop spending more than we make. It's bullshit to say "you can't point that gun against our head!" when referring to refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Continuing to have unrestrained spending forcing us to continue raising our debt is itself a threat held against our own heads. When someone has a spending problem, you cut up the fucking credit cards. I don't see how difficult this is for us to understand.
I mean, really, what do you expect to happen? We're going to raise the ceiling this time around and everyone will promise to "be really good" next time? The democrats will promise not to spend zillions on more bullshit social programs and the republicans will promise not to spend billions on bullshit military actions? Really? If we just promise to let them go over this one more time?
This is the same fucked up "logic" that the public was fed to justify bailing out corporate America. Feed them bullshit through the media until everyone was worked up into a frenzy. We can't afford NOT to hand out seven trillion dollars! If we don't, the entire country will be bankrupt and you will be eating road kill off the streets as your house burns to the ground and your entire family contracts malaria!
All these endless threads here about "conservatives durp durp" and 'liberals durp durp". Let's call it what it is... fucktards and fucktards. And both groups of fucktards are trying to scare the shit out of you to continue raping us all. And we're fucking falling for it, like morons.
It's clear what's going to happen. We'll raise the ceiling into the indefinite future and we'll continue to spend more and more into the indefinite future, until our deficit becomes so large that it topples over and the whole country is done. There will be a breaking point, eventually. We have to get control of this bullshit, sooner rather than later. But... we won't. And so we'll get what we deserve.
You do realize that "the tea party" and "republicans" are not the same thing, right? The Tea Party was a libertarian movement (which is entirely unrelated to republicans) that was simply raided by the republicans who stole the name (and therefore, the party, as far as the media is concerned). It's kind of like how there are hackers and crackers and crackers have stolen the term "hacker" for themselves, leaving hackers to cry foul with nobody listening.
Ron Paul hasn't lead the tea party for a long time as it was stolen by the psychotic republicans like Palin and Glenn Beck. In fact, Paul said as much a year or two ago, when he was quoted as saying (in regard to the party being hijacked by republican nutjobs) "you are being taken for a ride". Frankly, it's kind of sickening to see you lump the two together.
The government isn't bound by the same requirements as you and I. If we're in debt, we have to pay down that debt as soon as possible, before all our shit is repossessed and we end up living on the street. We don't have the option to say "well, fuck it, we'll just raise our debt ceiling" so we can redirect that revenue to something more fun, like buying votes of elderly people by putting out propaganda that without the medicare/caid/whatever system, they'd all be eating cat food and recycling their own urine for sustenance.
To be fair, it's really inaccurate when we take the national debt and divide it by "number of citizens" or "number of families". Only about 100m people pay taxes and of those, many pay an inconsequential amount. It's more fair to say, for example, that (using fake numbers here - I haven't done the math recently) 50% would average around $10k/ea of the debt while the other 50% would average around, say, $50k of the debt. You know, since we don't all pay the same share of taxes.
I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America (what little pulse there is). Unless you're going to acknowledge the same civil rights to gay people that everyone else has on a federal level, or you're going to shut down the NFL, or you're going to ban latte's, there is nothing that will ever cause the US to erupt. If that video of our troops unloading on unarmed people with really pathetic commentary on the open mics didn't cause a riot, nothing will. If Goldman Sachs executives running the treasury giving massive bailouts to Goldman Sachs didn't cause riots, nothing will. If going to war for almost a decade against a country that didn't attack us for reasons that were later acknowledged to be manufactured and false (and that we're still participating in) didn't cause riots, nothing will.
Two wrongs aren't justified here. We shouldn't be taxed any more than we already are and we shouldn't be engaged in multiple poorly justified military actions (we haven't been at war since WWII) and, while we're at it, we shouldn't be participating in multiple-trillion dollar bailouts or stimulus packages.
The problem is that when you have a free market that isn't free when things go to shit, it's a lot like having a casino that believes in squaring up at the end of the night . . . unless *they're* the ones left owing. There's no accountability and no faith to be had.
Raising taxes is the saddest solution. If we determine that we can simply solve the problem of irresponsible spending by funneling money out of another person's bank account, then we'll simply continue to increase spending (as we always have) until even those cows aren't yielding any more milk and we're back in the same position.
The fact of the matter is, we have to stop being pussies. Stand up and start cutting some shit. "Well, we don't want to upset XYZ demographic" is irrelevant. Your kids might be really pissed if you cut out cable television, but if you can't afford it, then you have no choice.
And for those saying "well, then what would YOU cut?!". I'd cut everything I fucking could. Here, I'll start it off -- take whatever social security taxes you've milked from me already. Keep it. Don't pay me any benefits when I retire. Disconnect me from that whole system. I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff we can cut, but now we've put the first thing on a list. Let's find something else.
And only in everywhere do people spout this sort of comment, intending it to apply to everyone who makes more money than they do. After all, if the guy down the street makes $100k and you make $75k, then that fucker is rich as hell and you want him to bleed like a schoolgirl on prom night.
You might be surprised at the number of major companies, organizations, and institutions whose mission-critical systems are brought to a crippling halt by running out of disk space.
It's awfully easy to say "boo freaking hoo" about someone else's money, isn't it? After all, if they have that income level, there's a good chance they may not need to rely on social security to retire (though I suppose that depends on what region of the country they live in). So forcing them to continue to chip into this scheme only serves to benefit everyone else. Hell, why not ask them to chip in at a *higher* rate than everyone else? Why not double? Why not triple? Why not just tell them that $50k is good enough and everything over that should be given to the old people down the street that never bothered to save a dime for retirement, because they believed social security was going to take care of them, because that's what "the government" told them?
This means I might not get a breakdown of all the money I'm never going to receive, when I retire! I mean, assuming they haven't moved the retirement age to 105 years old by then!
We need to re-appropriate NASA's budget to more important things like paying Goldman Sachs to rape our asses.
It's amusing that the future of mankind's existence relies on exploration of space, but we freak out over a few billion here and there. On the other hand, a couple financial institutions or car manufacturers face the realities of a free market and we trip over ourselves throwing trillions at them.
It was inevitable, anyway. We're more interested in fixing potholes and bailing out commercial entities with plants in the government for trillions of dollars than pursuing the most basic human (and, arguably, America) endeavor -- exploration. Yes, there are still individuals and organizations that care about this, but there was a time (sadly, before my years) when everyone was captivated by it.
What frustrates me is that there are a ton of apologists who say that this trend in gaming is justified, because acquiring a game through any other means than paying full launch day retail price for a brand new game is somehow evil as hell. These same people completely ignore the point that this directly impacts even the first owner of the item. While I don't agree with it, it's one thing to say "when the game is sold used, you have to pay another $10 to unlock online access for it". It's quite another to say "every person who plays this game online has to pay another $10".
What about all of those multiplayer households? What about siblings, roommates, spouses, friends dropping by? This is no different than saying you have to pay higher fees for internet access, cable television access, board games, a deck of cards, a land phone line, a DVD, a CD, a book, etc.
I hear this suggestion all the time and I don't see how it solves the problem whatsoever. As it is, people can't afford to defend themselves even against the most simple and obvious cases that should be open and shut in their favor. Requiring the loser to pay accomplishes nothing. Big businesses and organizations can currently afford lawsuits more than individuals or small businesses and they can afford to pay for your and my shitty lawyer in the event that their attempts to intimidate you through the court system were to backfire on them. In both cases, the problem still comes down to the unbelievable expense in anything regarding the legal system and one person always having a financial power - and therefore more leverage and options - period.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, please do the same for anything on that ripoffreport extortion site. Ooh, and anything ending in ehow.com or answers.yahoo.com or chacha.com or the other endless streams of bullshit content farm crapfests. Those we actually run into all the time, via google. I don't know when the fuck the last time was I ran into a co.cc link of any kind, via google. Probably never.
Agreed. Isn't it supposed to be a Film Patterened Intellectually Disableder?
Anyway, I think more than one of us missed the point in your link to a specs page where they typo'd the name of the product/feature . . . ?
As for the word itself . . . "retarded" is word that was chosen in the medical profession as a kinder and more appropriate way to refer to a certain condition than imbecile, moron, or idiot. We no longer use those three words to refer to people with actual mental retardation, and so we are free to use them to hurl at each other without consequence. Nobody ever calls you to task for insensitively using the word 'idiot' or 'imbecile'. Likewise, since it was decided some time ago that the word 'retarded' no longer applies to actual cases of mental retardation (the appropriate phrase is now "intellectually disabled"), then that opens up the word 'retarded' as free to use, without consequence. If the other three words are appropriate, because they're no longer used to refer to the actual people they once did, then the same has to directly apply to 'retarded'.
Overall, I think I paid around 38% in taxes last year (not including sales taxes and things like property tax). Is that not enough fucking taxes? Just how much more do I need to pay for it to be "fair"? It's not like I'm living in a mansion. I've got family members I could be helping get through school. I've got a mortgage on an average house in an average neighborhood with average guys and their average families. I've got a savings account I'm hoping I can keep putting enough into so I can retire, some day. I've got a budget and have to think carefully about my spending. If I lost my job, I'd be in a bit of a crunch.
I'm a fan of fair taxation, but I'm not a fan of using "tax the rich durp durp!" as an excuse for fiscal responsibility. Taxes bring in such a ludicrous amount of revenue that there's no excuse for the entire country not to be living in a near fucking utopia. The only thing stopping us is the utter corruption and unaccountability for the irresponsibility in government. I can't say I have a problem with anyone fighting strongly against a single point of higher tax, until some sanity is shown in how that revenue is going to be spent.
I think most rational people actually don't mind chipping into the pot, when they can see the fruits of their contributions. You'd have to be a fool to voluntarily hurl your money into a sucking bottomless pit, though.
Also, what we're usually calling "rich" in these discussions is almost always laughably small. I might easily concede that someone earning millions a year is rich, but I'd have a hard time saying the same about someone making $150k or $250k. There's a difference between making enough money to not really have to worry about it and making enough money that you have a solid gold umbrella holder and you use hundred dollar bills to start your kindling in the fireplace.
Are we still pushing this meme that the Bush "tax cuts for the wealthy" were really tax cuts exclusively for the wealthy?
I'll take fewer public services for less taxes. Right off the bat, I'm ready to give up my social security. I'm sure I can come up with others, if you give me another five seconds to think about it.
I still don't get the conflict, here.
If you're spending more than you earn, you have to cut luxuries. Cable television. Maybe even things like internet access. If you are spending (and already owe) a *lot* more than you're spending, you have to start cutting more things. Like the quality of the food you buy, maybe your transportation, maybe even your health care and maybe even your shelter.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that might hurt to cut on a government level. So what? If we can't pay for it, we can't pay for it. It's not magical math.
You know, the more money you owe in relation to your income, the worse your credit score becomes. I don't follow the logic that increasing our deficit increases our reputation and stability. The only confidence to be had in our debt is that we'll continue to incur more and more that we will never actually pay on. But, I guess the world can continue to thrive on an infinite supply of meaningless IOUs.
You're kidding, right? Congress has been dominated by giant pussies for decades, who do whatever the president demands of them. They may bitch and whine and moan, but when it comes down to the voting and the actions, they're less a counterbalancing branch of the government than they are the lapdogs of the president (whichever president it is at the time).
Frankly, it's time to fucking grow up and stop spending more than we make. It's bullshit to say "you can't point that gun against our head!" when referring to refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Continuing to have unrestrained spending forcing us to continue raising our debt is itself a threat held against our own heads. When someone has a spending problem, you cut up the fucking credit cards. I don't see how difficult this is for us to understand.
I mean, really, what do you expect to happen? We're going to raise the ceiling this time around and everyone will promise to "be really good" next time? The democrats will promise not to spend zillions on more bullshit social programs and the republicans will promise not to spend billions on bullshit military actions? Really? If we just promise to let them go over this one more time?
This is the same fucked up "logic" that the public was fed to justify bailing out corporate America. Feed them bullshit through the media until everyone was worked up into a frenzy. We can't afford NOT to hand out seven trillion dollars! If we don't, the entire country will be bankrupt and you will be eating road kill off the streets as your house burns to the ground and your entire family contracts malaria!
All these endless threads here about "conservatives durp durp" and 'liberals durp durp". Let's call it what it is... fucktards and fucktards. And both groups of fucktards are trying to scare the shit out of you to continue raping us all. And we're fucking falling for it, like morons.
It's clear what's going to happen. We'll raise the ceiling into the indefinite future and we'll continue to spend more and more into the indefinite future, until our deficit becomes so large that it topples over and the whole country is done. There will be a breaking point, eventually. We have to get control of this bullshit, sooner rather than later. But... we won't. And so we'll get what we deserve.
You do realize that "the tea party" and "republicans" are not the same thing, right? The Tea Party was a libertarian movement (which is entirely unrelated to republicans) that was simply raided by the republicans who stole the name (and therefore, the party, as far as the media is concerned). It's kind of like how there are hackers and crackers and crackers have stolen the term "hacker" for themselves, leaving hackers to cry foul with nobody listening.
Ron Paul hasn't lead the tea party for a long time as it was stolen by the psychotic republicans like Palin and Glenn Beck. In fact, Paul said as much a year or two ago, when he was quoted as saying (in regard to the party being hijacked by republican nutjobs) "you are being taken for a ride". Frankly, it's kind of sickening to see you lump the two together.
I can't tell if you're retarded or insane.
Why not? They've been robbing us for decades, to pay for their retirements and social services.
The government isn't bound by the same requirements as you and I. If we're in debt, we have to pay down that debt as soon as possible, before all our shit is repossessed and we end up living on the street. We don't have the option to say "well, fuck it, we'll just raise our debt ceiling" so we can redirect that revenue to something more fun, like buying votes of elderly people by putting out propaganda that without the medicare/caid/whatever system, they'd all be eating cat food and recycling their own urine for sustenance.
To be fair, it's really inaccurate when we take the national debt and divide it by "number of citizens" or "number of families". Only about 100m people pay taxes and of those, many pay an inconsequential amount. It's more fair to say, for example, that (using fake numbers here - I haven't done the math recently) 50% would average around $10k/ea of the debt while the other 50% would average around, say, $50k of the debt. You know, since we don't all pay the same share of taxes.
I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America (what little pulse there is). Unless you're going to acknowledge the same civil rights to gay people that everyone else has on a federal level, or you're going to shut down the NFL, or you're going to ban latte's, there is nothing that will ever cause the US to erupt. If that video of our troops unloading on unarmed people with really pathetic commentary on the open mics didn't cause a riot, nothing will. If Goldman Sachs executives running the treasury giving massive bailouts to Goldman Sachs didn't cause riots, nothing will. If going to war for almost a decade against a country that didn't attack us for reasons that were later acknowledged to be manufactured and false (and that we're still participating in) didn't cause riots, nothing will.
Two wrongs aren't justified here. We shouldn't be taxed any more than we already are and we shouldn't be engaged in multiple poorly justified military actions (we haven't been at war since WWII) and, while we're at it, we shouldn't be participating in multiple-trillion dollar bailouts or stimulus packages.
The problem is that when you have a free market that isn't free when things go to shit, it's a lot like having a casino that believes in squaring up at the end of the night . . . unless *they're* the ones left owing. There's no accountability and no faith to be had.
Raising taxes is the saddest solution. If we determine that we can simply solve the problem of irresponsible spending by funneling money out of another person's bank account, then we'll simply continue to increase spending (as we always have) until even those cows aren't yielding any more milk and we're back in the same position.
The fact of the matter is, we have to stop being pussies. Stand up and start cutting some shit. "Well, we don't want to upset XYZ demographic" is irrelevant. Your kids might be really pissed if you cut out cable television, but if you can't afford it, then you have no choice.
And for those saying "well, then what would YOU cut?!". I'd cut everything I fucking could. Here, I'll start it off -- take whatever social security taxes you've milked from me already. Keep it. Don't pay me any benefits when I retire. Disconnect me from that whole system. I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff we can cut, but now we've put the first thing on a list. Let's find something else.
And only in everywhere do people spout this sort of comment, intending it to apply to everyone who makes more money than they do. After all, if the guy down the street makes $100k and you make $75k, then that fucker is rich as hell and you want him to bleed like a schoolgirl on prom night.
You might be surprised at the number of major companies, organizations, and institutions whose mission-critical systems are brought to a crippling halt by running out of disk space.
It's awfully easy to say "boo freaking hoo" about someone else's money, isn't it? After all, if they have that income level, there's a good chance they may not need to rely on social security to retire (though I suppose that depends on what region of the country they live in). So forcing them to continue to chip into this scheme only serves to benefit everyone else. Hell, why not ask them to chip in at a *higher* rate than everyone else? Why not double? Why not triple? Why not just tell them that $50k is good enough and everything over that should be given to the old people down the street that never bothered to save a dime for retirement, because they believed social security was going to take care of them, because that's what "the government" told them?
This means I might not get a breakdown of all the money I'm never going to receive, when I retire! I mean, assuming they haven't moved the retirement age to 105 years old by then!
We need to re-appropriate NASA's budget to more important things like paying Goldman Sachs to rape our asses.
It's amusing that the future of mankind's existence relies on exploration of space, but we freak out over a few billion here and there. On the other hand, a couple financial institutions or car manufacturers face the realities of a free market and we trip over ourselves throwing trillions at them.
It was inevitable, anyway. We're more interested in fixing potholes and bailing out commercial entities with plants in the government for trillions of dollars than pursuing the most basic human (and, arguably, America) endeavor -- exploration. Yes, there are still individuals and organizations that care about this, but there was a time (sadly, before my years) when everyone was captivated by it.
What frustrates me is that there are a ton of apologists who say that this trend in gaming is justified, because acquiring a game through any other means than paying full launch day retail price for a brand new game is somehow evil as hell. These same people completely ignore the point that this directly impacts even the first owner of the item. While I don't agree with it, it's one thing to say "when the game is sold used, you have to pay another $10 to unlock online access for it". It's quite another to say "every person who plays this game online has to pay another $10".
What about all of those multiplayer households? What about siblings, roommates, spouses, friends dropping by? This is no different than saying you have to pay higher fees for internet access, cable television access, board games, a deck of cards, a land phone line, a DVD, a CD, a book, etc.
How do they work?
I hear this suggestion all the time and I don't see how it solves the problem whatsoever. As it is, people can't afford to defend themselves even against the most simple and obvious cases that should be open and shut in their favor. Requiring the loser to pay accomplishes nothing. Big businesses and organizations can currently afford lawsuits more than individuals or small businesses and they can afford to pay for your and my shitty lawyer in the event that their attempts to intimidate you through the court system were to backfire on them. In both cases, the problem still comes down to the unbelievable expense in anything regarding the legal system and one person always having a financial power - and therefore more leverage and options - period.
And by "filtered", I think you mean "planted" as they usually/always are at this type of function.