Plastics Corporations as People Lawyers Spy Satellites Patented Seeds Farm Subsidies Corn Subsidies (cheap sweeteners) Sugar Tariffs NAFTA DMCA Perpetual Copyright Soap Operas Fruit Roll Ups Nachos without onions...
Though, I would point out that DDT is very effective in eliminating malaria-carrying mosquitoes in high malaria areas... The elimination of DDT has caused an unchecked increase in malaria throughout those areas affected by the disease. (It was almost wiped out.) Still, one poison for another... gets you to wondering.:) National Geographic had a great article about it (and malaria) a while back... (too lazy to google it right now.)
As for "natural scrolling" I swapped it back to the original scrolling.
But I actually like the new expose. It puts the multiple desktop and windows in one place. I don't use multiple desktops even in Linux. They are convenient at first, but they generally become a chore as you work...
To each his own, I guess. Lion has been a fairly stable upgrade for me... but then again, I compare all my OS X updates to Tiger (that fiasco)... so they're ALL always better than Tiger.:)
I love the fact that yes, infringement exists, but there is a substantial part of their "audience" that is just plain tired of their crap and have abandoned them. They don't go to movies, they don't buy CDs (that aren't used old stuff), and they don't buy DVDs/Blu Rays... and there's nothing worth torrenting for them.:)
When that group becomes a majority, somehow, some way, these asspiles will figure out how to monetize the ability NOT to watch or otherwise consume their "content." I bet someone's already drawn up a plan, piled some cash into a vault, and put the red button behind a glass cover that says "break only in the event that people stop caring about our crap."
I have seen 1 movie this year in the theater, Thor. It sucked. So I avoided the rest of the movies. I just haven't given a shit for a long time, but now, I'm pretty much done wasting my time. I've got better things to do than to make these pricks richer. For those who continue to do so, I don't mind. I just won't do it. One day, though... you'll get tired of the same, rehashed shit and simply tune them out. I never thought I would, but then again, their efforts to stomp on my liberty hadn't gotten this bad yet.
When someone lambasts a movie with the title "Cowboys and Aliens" as if they were disappointed that the narrative fabric wasn't interwoven into each character's inner monologue... I get weary. It's not pretending to be anything but camp. There's room for camp. There was an ad for a film at the front of "Hobo with a Shotgun" about a homicidal tire. Yes, literally a tire that gets pushed to the point of snapping and killing those who have wronged him. If that's not "non-formulaic" I don't know what is. And when I say "tire" I don't mean "man in a Michelin suit" sort of thing. I mean, a physical tire you'd find on a passenger car. The trailer was fucking weird. But I think I want to see it.:)
Good films are where you find them. I'd rather just be entertained for 2 hours... play me out with music. YMMV, of course... (Give Moon a look... it's a great movie.) Homicidal tires, ass-kicking Elvis impersonators... I love 'em all. (Yes, I loved Bubba Ho-Tep)
Well put. Sometimes movies are just supposed to be fun. I mean, seriously? We're praising movies on the one hand that have just as silly a premise as this one, but because someone has a boner against Daniel Craig as James Bond, this movie lacks "substance"? WTF? Didn't the title clue everyone in? (As for Craig, I enjoyed his Bond movies... more than I can say for the last 4 Bonds...)
Now for the rest of you neckbeard Comic Book Guys:
Sometimes movies are just that... fun rides. Who gives a shit if Harrison Ford is arrogant? The man's been in film franchises that grossed a bazillion dollars... and he's a good actor. He's wiping his ass with $100 bills and that sparks jealousy. He doesn't "Burt Reynolds" his way through a part... he's believable.
As for high art in this movie... is everyone missing the fun? All critical folk should look at this movie the way they SHOULD have looked at the Star Wars prequels... through 11-year-old eyes. Stop trying to turn simple action space operas into hard science fiction all the time. You'll live longer.:)
I think we're getting entirely too concerned with protecting people from themselves. This is an innocuous method for protecting the morons, but there have been other proposals that are much more sinister (and not even remotely helpful to anyone but corporations and governments..)
The automated system sounds more palatable to people who hate the free speech that the internet gives certain demographics.:)
At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair. She also hates the 2nd Amendment... Freedom of Speech (If someone wants to call a gay person a fanny bandit, goddamnit, he should have the right to do so...):)
But then again, she's a Senator... that means she's more out of touch than Helen Keller on acid.
I think the individualist tendencies of the Republicans collectively is almost nil. Sure they talk a good game, but about the only thing they tend to focus on is regulation and based on their corporate donors, it's usually environmental issues that get shot to hell... The binding arbitration nonsense, and making it hard on whistleblowers. They are the classical definition of "corporate stooge", but when the Democrats point that out, it's really just as hypocritical. I mean, hello kettle?:)
In the case of Democrats, their donors want more control over your personal life (DRM, internet "police", "hate speech" regulations)... so their big push is with restricting freedom to protect perpetual copyright... They also want more restrictions on choices that may harm groups like Unions... etc. They despise a market-based approach to anything, and judging by the track record of their counterparts in the Republican camp, they want to "keep the status quo"... though the definition of what exactly that is continues to be shifting and debatable. Republicans want to keep new business from out-performing the old guard... and democrats want the new guard to be unionized or there's no deal...
I suppose you could say that the difference is significant, but the conclusion is the same... more power to the government, and less liberty to us.
If you can't see that both parties are the same, then it is YOU that has been living in a box, under a rock. In the last decade, have you noticed ANYTHING has changed, even with a new asshole in the Oval Office? Obamacare doesn't count, because the very administration that championed it has given so many fucking exemptions to corporations that it's about as effective as telling Congress NOT to spend money.
If you truly believe there are two choices from the major parties on election day... stay home. Please. Because you're part of the fucking problem. And why we're still sucking the aft-most tit.... THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME corporatist bullshit artists.
I never said they were irrelevant to me. I said they were irrelevant to the FEDERAL government. Read just a little bit before you start your axe a' grinding.
The Federal government has no business in EITHER of those things... because that is not part of THEIR Constitutionally enumerated powers.
It's not cavalier... it's exactly HOW the government of this Republic is supposed to function. And yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it doesn't pass Constitutional muster (are you seriously going to fucking argue that Gay Marriage is an Interstate commerce issue?) it is NOT the job of the Federal government.
This nation was founded by "Federalists"... and they had it right. When we deviate from their idea, THAT is when we get the current mess... a bloated, overspending federal government that swallows up liberty as fast as it does OUR money.
Not to feed the troll... but remember when someone says "surplus"... you have to know exactly what they're referring to. Clinton and the Republican Congress did a better than fair job of reigning in spending but because it had been going like gangbusters since Carter, but the accumulated debt was (and still is) a burden. When the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, Clinton's surplus was closing in on another deficit, due to many economic factors (and the contention that somewhere someone said it was a good idea to "spend your way out of a recession"... hasn't worked since the Depression, so why do we keep trying?)
I thought Clinton was a prick... but he did work with the Republicans and made some meaningful fiscal changes... HOWEVER... Shrub is still beat out by Carter for the worst president in the last 100 years. Sorry, but your partisan bootlicking doesn't change that fact. If you happened to be alive in the 70's (I was, unfortunately)... the economy, the outlook, and the rest of it all was as bleak as you hear everyone say it is.
But that's a while ago... we don't repeat our problems do we? Yes we do. Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Obama... all have been guilty of the SAME tired line... "give me more money, and I'll make it better for you." Funny thing is, Clinton held more to Libertarian ideals (with the exception of Health Care by his witch of a wife) than any president since. And yet, people still think the current idiot in the oval office is better. Makes you wonder what the electorate is smoking....
There are no meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats, unless you count their donors. It is, and has been for some time, a one-party system with the veil of "choice" pulled over the eyes of the voters. Both parties increase the power of the Federal government (against the constitution and the will of the people), and both parties want more of our money.
The only difference (if you can call it that) between the parties (besides the mascot) is their stance on "scary social problems" like gay marriage and abortion. Both of which have nothing to do with governing and the federal government, if it were Constitutionally sound and legal, would not be involved in either item at all. The Constitution makes clear what the federal government can do, yet we keep electing these asspiles who ignore it.
I wish there was enough outrage to give a third party support, but it appears the deck is stacked against any candidate that isn't an elephant or donkey.
Unfortunately (or fortunately for some) there is no jail time for being stupid.:) They aren't being unethical in a business sense. But they are doing exactly what Google wants. What better way to drum up buzz for a new service than to have the established service ban new-guy's ads? Make established social media site look like they're afraid of upstart (never mind that it's not really the point of their original suspension).
It's elementary really. Google just troll-baited Facebook and they took it. Now, like the Streisand Effect, they have drawn attention to Google+ while simultaneously looking like giant, whiny douchebags (or sandy vaginas... depending on your perspective.)
Google seems to be really good at drumming up sympathy from people with a totalitarian ethic.
Funny you should mention that. Insert any corporation in there (besides, maybe Oil companies)... and it fits for some reason.:)
If everyone coded in C++, we'd be putting built-in time limits on how long anyone could use an application... due to all the memory leaks devs don't have the time to look for.:)
Incompetent C++ programmers are as bad as programmers who don't code efficiently.:) It's the nature of C++...
Software patents stop innovation. That's their sole purpose... You hit the nail on the head. My android phone runs circles around the iPhone... I can see why Apple's worried.
I think Apple's lapping Microsoft in the douche of the Universe Award. I mean, we still have the swimsuit competition... *shudder* Ballmer in a bikini...
Apple's been getting on my LAST nerve, well, since they went Intel. I'm seriously re-thinking my interest in anything Apple at all. Steve Jobs can sit and spin... The only reason Apple's doing this is because the real threat for their smartphone business is Android phones. I wonder how long it'll take before Apple and Microsoft go toe-to-toe in the smartphone arena...
This fiasco, folks, is why Software Patents are evil.
They upped the price on my plan. I don't think it's worth that much money... Because before that, I could have 3 DVDs out at that price... But the bigger picture is incentive vs. punishment: I used the streaming only incentive as an idea to take the 1-DVD plan people out of the dvd rental part with an incentive, rather than sticking it to them with a price hike. And like I said before, the $8 streaming isn't as attractive to someone who isn't a TV lover.
Okay, that's fine. it happens all the time... charge the new guys... or better yet, give current customers and incentive to go streaming only... $5.99 or something for dumping the DVD (that'd help costs considerably)...
Don't up the price for 1 DVD out to the same historical price of 3 DVDs out (back when their streaming was nonexistent) just because costs went up. Look for cost-savings on your own end rather than simply passing the cost onto your loyal subscribers. Goodwill is harder to come by in the business world... infinitely harder than profit.
I canceled... because I don't watch much TV (which streaming seems rife with)... I don't wax nostalgic for Airwolf or Fat Albert... I know there are those who do, and that's alright. For $9.99, it was a good deal for me. Now, not even close to a good deal.
Do you realize that the current President argued on the Senate floor in 2006 AGAINST raising the debt ceiling?
Do you realize that with the exception of the stupid tax on jet airplanes (remember how well that worked for yachts?) the Democratic party wants MORE money to solve the problem of OVER-spending by BOTH sides of the aisle?
How this is a "Tea Party" fucking with the budget is frankly tilting at windmills... convenient scapegoat because of their fringe (that you so acutely documented)...
One of the things I love to mention, and this is from a great President (JFK)... he LOWERED the marginal rate for the top bracket and actually INCREASED revenue... because if you change the marginal rate upwards, you freeze the money over that amount into savings or bonds or something that doesn't generate revenue (he has a great speech about it somewhere... I forget where I read it.)
But let's be frank... people who complain there is a revenue problem because of lower tax rates forget the difference between MARGINAL and EFFECTIVE tax rates... It's a spending problem. It has been since the last years of the Carter Administration....
But never let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant...
My party? Just because I want balance? Why do you think those republicans caucus with the Tea Party? Because they're militia nuts who want to be out of a job? No. Does the environmental wing of the Democratic Party side with the fringe groups who want to kill anyone who doesn't live in a teepee made from their own shit? No. Because the term "fringe" means just that.
Just like the fringe of the Republican party... the Democrats have their fringe. When the fringe becomes a majority voice in EITHER party (I am not convinced there are two parties anymore)... then we can revisit this issue. Otherwise it sounds like a bunch of partisan bluster.
I've got two words for anyone who doesn't think there are fringe groups in the Democratic Party as well "George Soros."
(I never said there WEREN'T fringe groups... I just do not equate those with any of the mainstream politics of even the Teabaggers.)
Take a step back from characterizing any disagreement with you as being someone from 'the other side'... and think for a moment before you buy into the phobia. Do I believe the Democratic Party in the Northeast is run by the Black Panthers? No, but I can cite several mainstream media (and no, not just Fox News) outlets who did stories on just that unsubstantiated nonsense. (google is your friend.) Giving the story ANY credence even "asking" if it is true means that they believe, even a little, that there was voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. Do the Black Panthers control the Congressional Black Caucus?
Take a step back from believing in the scare-tactics and realize that the Teabaggers are a crude implementation of Libertarian philosophy that doesn't want to overthrow government... just to pull its power down to constitutionally provided levels. There are nuts... just like there are nuts in the Democratic party... what you have to realize that if you are looking for boogey-men... you will find them. On either side of the aisle.
Go to opensecrets and find some of the interesting donors to Democratic (and Republican) candidates... the nutjob fringe of the Tea Party is the least of anyone's worries.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few added to your list...
Plastics
Corporations as People
Lawyers
Spy Satellites
Patented Seeds
Farm Subsidies
Corn Subsidies (cheap sweeteners)
Sugar Tariffs
NAFTA
DMCA
Perpetual Copyright
Soap Operas
Fruit Roll Ups
Nachos without onions...
Though, I would point out that DDT is very effective in eliminating malaria-carrying mosquitoes in high malaria areas... The elimination of DDT has caused an unchecked increase in malaria throughout those areas affected by the disease. (It was almost wiped out.) Still, one poison for another... gets you to wondering. :) National Geographic had a great article about it (and malaria) a while back... (too lazy to google it right now.)
As for "natural scrolling" I swapped it back to the original scrolling. But I actually like the new expose. It puts the multiple desktop and windows in one place. I don't use multiple desktops even in Linux. They are convenient at first, but they generally become a chore as you work... To each his own, I guess. Lion has been a fairly stable upgrade for me... but then again, I compare all my OS X updates to Tiger (that fiasco)... so they're ALL always better than Tiger. :)
Isn't "gam" slang for a woman's leg?
So that means they're going to look at legs! :) Turn the entire crowd into genuine gam-lovers. :)
He didn't say he was from the Jersey Shore....
I love the fact that yes, infringement exists, but there is a substantial part of their "audience" that is just plain tired of their crap and have abandoned them. They don't go to movies, they don't buy CDs (that aren't used old stuff), and they don't buy DVDs/Blu Rays... and there's nothing worth torrenting for them. :)
When that group becomes a majority, somehow, some way, these asspiles will figure out how to monetize the ability NOT to watch or otherwise consume their "content." I bet someone's already drawn up a plan, piled some cash into a vault, and put the red button behind a glass cover that says "break only in the event that people stop caring about our crap."
I have seen 1 movie this year in the theater, Thor. It sucked. So I avoided the rest of the movies. I just haven't given a shit for a long time, but now, I'm pretty much done wasting my time. I've got better things to do than to make these pricks richer. For those who continue to do so, I don't mind. I just won't do it. One day, though... you'll get tired of the same, rehashed shit and simply tune them out. I never thought I would, but then again, their efforts to stomp on my liberty hadn't gotten this bad yet.
When someone lambasts a movie with the title "Cowboys and Aliens" as if they were disappointed that the narrative fabric wasn't interwoven into each character's inner monologue... I get weary. It's not pretending to be anything but camp. There's room for camp. There was an ad for a film at the front of "Hobo with a Shotgun" about a homicidal tire. Yes, literally a tire that gets pushed to the point of snapping and killing those who have wronged him. If that's not "non-formulaic" I don't know what is. And when I say "tire" I don't mean "man in a Michelin suit" sort of thing. I mean, a physical tire you'd find on a passenger car. The trailer was fucking weird. But I think I want to see it. :)
Good films are where you find them. I'd rather just be entertained for 2 hours... play me out with music. YMMV, of course... (Give Moon a look... it's a great movie.) Homicidal tires, ass-kicking Elvis impersonators... I love 'em all. (Yes, I loved Bubba Ho-Tep)
I also agree.. :)
Well put. Sometimes movies are just supposed to be fun. I mean, seriously? We're praising movies on the one hand that have just as silly a premise as this one, but because someone has a boner against Daniel Craig as James Bond, this movie lacks "substance"? WTF? Didn't the title clue everyone in? (As for Craig, I enjoyed his Bond movies... more than I can say for the last 4 Bonds...)
Now for the rest of you neckbeard Comic Book Guys:
Sometimes movies are just that... fun rides. Who gives a shit if Harrison Ford is arrogant? The man's been in film franchises that grossed a bazillion dollars... and he's a good actor. He's wiping his ass with $100 bills and that sparks jealousy. He doesn't "Burt Reynolds" his way through a part... he's believable.
As for high art in this movie... is everyone missing the fun? All critical folk should look at this movie the way they SHOULD have looked at the Star Wars prequels... through 11-year-old eyes. Stop trying to turn simple action space operas into hard science fiction all the time. You'll live longer. :)
This movie has all the elements:
Cowboys? Check.
Aliens? Check.
Explosions? Check.
Action thrills? Check.
Pretty much pass me the popcorn. If I wanted to watch Shakespeare, I wouldn't go to a movie with the title "Cowboys and Aliens"...
I think we're getting entirely too concerned with protecting people from themselves. This is an innocuous method for protecting the morons, but there have been other proposals that are much more sinister (and not even remotely helpful to anyone but corporations and governments..)
The automated system sounds more palatable to people who hate the free speech that the internet gives certain demographics. :)
At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair. She also hates the 2nd Amendment... Freedom of Speech (If someone wants to call a gay person a fanny bandit, goddamnit, he should have the right to do so...) :)
But then again, she's a Senator... that means she's more out of touch than Helen Keller on acid.
I think the individualist tendencies of the Republicans collectively is almost nil. Sure they talk a good game, but about the only thing they tend to focus on is regulation and based on their corporate donors, it's usually environmental issues that get shot to hell... The binding arbitration nonsense, and making it hard on whistleblowers. They are the classical definition of "corporate stooge", but when the Democrats point that out, it's really just as hypocritical. I mean, hello kettle? :)
In the case of Democrats, their donors want more control over your personal life (DRM, internet "police", "hate speech" regulations)... so their big push is with restricting freedom to protect perpetual copyright... They also want more restrictions on choices that may harm groups like Unions... etc. They despise a market-based approach to anything, and judging by the track record of their counterparts in the Republican camp, they want to "keep the status quo"... though the definition of what exactly that is continues to be shifting and debatable. Republicans want to keep new business from out-performing the old guard... and democrats want the new guard to be unionized or there's no deal...
I suppose you could say that the difference is significant, but the conclusion is the same... more power to the government, and less liberty to us.
Nah, I just have to vote to cancel your vote out...
If you can't see that both parties are the same, then it is YOU that has been living in a box, under a rock. In the last decade, have you noticed ANYTHING has changed, even with a new asshole in the Oval Office? Obamacare doesn't count, because the very administration that championed it has given so many fucking exemptions to corporations that it's about as effective as telling Congress NOT to spend money.
If you truly believe there are two choices from the major parties on election day... stay home. Please. Because you're part of the fucking problem. And why we're still sucking the aft-most tit.... THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME corporatist bullshit artists.
I never said they were irrelevant to me. I said they were irrelevant to the FEDERAL government. Read just a little bit before you start your axe a' grinding.
The Federal government has no business in EITHER of those things... because that is not part of THEIR Constitutionally enumerated powers.
It's not cavalier... it's exactly HOW the government of this Republic is supposed to function. And yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it doesn't pass Constitutional muster (are you seriously going to fucking argue that Gay Marriage is an Interstate commerce issue?) it is NOT the job of the Federal government.
This nation was founded by "Federalists"... and they had it right. When we deviate from their idea, THAT is when we get the current mess... a bloated, overspending federal government that swallows up liberty as fast as it does OUR money.
Not to feed the troll... but remember when someone says "surplus"... you have to know exactly what they're referring to. Clinton and the Republican Congress did a better than fair job of reigning in spending but because it had been going like gangbusters since Carter, but the accumulated debt was (and still is) a burden. When the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, Clinton's surplus was closing in on another deficit, due to many economic factors (and the contention that somewhere someone said it was a good idea to "spend your way out of a recession"... hasn't worked since the Depression, so why do we keep trying?)
I thought Clinton was a prick... but he did work with the Republicans and made some meaningful fiscal changes... HOWEVER... Shrub is still beat out by Carter for the worst president in the last 100 years. Sorry, but your partisan bootlicking doesn't change that fact. If you happened to be alive in the 70's (I was, unfortunately)... the economy, the outlook, and the rest of it all was as bleak as you hear everyone say it is.
But that's a while ago... we don't repeat our problems do we? Yes we do. Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Obama... all have been guilty of the SAME tired line... "give me more money, and I'll make it better for you." Funny thing is, Clinton held more to Libertarian ideals (with the exception of Health Care by his witch of a wife) than any president since. And yet, people still think the current idiot in the oval office is better. Makes you wonder what the electorate is smoking....
There are no meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats, unless you count their donors. It is, and has been for some time, a one-party system with the veil of "choice" pulled over the eyes of the voters. Both parties increase the power of the Federal government (against the constitution and the will of the people), and both parties want more of our money.
The only difference (if you can call it that) between the parties (besides the mascot) is their stance on "scary social problems" like gay marriage and abortion. Both of which have nothing to do with governing and the federal government, if it were Constitutionally sound and legal, would not be involved in either item at all. The Constitution makes clear what the federal government can do, yet we keep electing these asspiles who ignore it.
I wish there was enough outrage to give a third party support, but it appears the deck is stacked against any candidate that isn't an elephant or donkey.
Sounds like the makings of a buddy cop show, doesn't it? :)
Unfortunately (or fortunately for some) there is no jail time for being stupid. :) They aren't being unethical in a business sense. But they are doing exactly what Google wants. What better way to drum up buzz for a new service than to have the established service ban new-guy's ads? Make established social media site look like they're afraid of upstart (never mind that it's not really the point of their original suspension).
It's elementary really. Google just troll-baited Facebook and they took it. Now, like the Streisand Effect, they have drawn attention to Google+ while simultaneously looking like giant, whiny douchebags (or sandy vaginas... depending on your perspective.)
Funny you should mention that. Insert any corporation in there (besides, maybe Oil companies)... and it fits for some reason. :)
If everyone coded in C++, we'd be putting built-in time limits on how long anyone could use an application... due to all the memory leaks devs don't have the time to look for. :)
Incompetent C++ programmers are as bad as programmers who don't code efficiently. :) It's the nature of C++...
Software patents stop innovation. That's their sole purpose... You hit the nail on the head. My android phone runs circles around the iPhone... I can see why Apple's worried.
I think Apple's lapping Microsoft in the douche of the Universe Award. I mean, we still have the swimsuit competition... *shudder* Ballmer in a bikini...
Apple's been getting on my LAST nerve, well, since they went Intel. I'm seriously re-thinking my interest in anything Apple at all. Steve Jobs can sit and spin... The only reason Apple's doing this is because the real threat for their smartphone business is Android phones. I wonder how long it'll take before Apple and Microsoft go toe-to-toe in the smartphone arena...
This fiasco, folks, is why Software Patents are evil.
Really? I thought it was all the goddamned vampires....
They upped the price on my plan. I don't think it's worth that much money... Because before that, I could have 3 DVDs out at that price... But the bigger picture is incentive vs. punishment: I used the streaming only incentive as an idea to take the 1-DVD plan people out of the dvd rental part with an incentive, rather than sticking it to them with a price hike. And like I said before, the $8 streaming isn't as attractive to someone who isn't a TV lover.
Okay, that's fine. it happens all the time... charge the new guys... or better yet, give current customers and incentive to go streaming only... $5.99 or something for dumping the DVD (that'd help costs considerably)...
Don't up the price for 1 DVD out to the same historical price of 3 DVDs out (back when their streaming was nonexistent) just because costs went up. Look for cost-savings on your own end rather than simply passing the cost onto your loyal subscribers. Goodwill is harder to come by in the business world... infinitely harder than profit.
I canceled... because I don't watch much TV (which streaming seems rife with)... I don't wax nostalgic for Airwolf or Fat Albert... I know there are those who do, and that's alright. For $9.99, it was a good deal for me. Now, not even close to a good deal.
Do you realize that the current President argued on the Senate floor in 2006 AGAINST raising the debt ceiling?
Do you realize that with the exception of the stupid tax on jet airplanes (remember how well that worked for yachts?) the Democratic party wants MORE money to solve the problem of OVER-spending by BOTH sides of the aisle?
How this is a "Tea Party" fucking with the budget is frankly tilting at windmills... convenient scapegoat because of their fringe (that you so acutely documented)...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Sorry this is from a fringe group:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
One of the things I love to mention, and this is from a great President (JFK)... he LOWERED the marginal rate for the top bracket and actually INCREASED revenue... because if you change the marginal rate upwards, you freeze the money over that amount into savings or bonds or something that doesn't generate revenue (he has a great speech about it somewhere... I forget where I read it.)
But let's be frank... people who complain there is a revenue problem because of lower tax rates forget the difference between MARGINAL and EFFECTIVE tax rates... It's a spending problem. It has been since the last years of the Carter Administration....
But never let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant...
My party? Just because I want balance?
Why do you think those republicans caucus with the Tea Party? Because they're militia nuts who want to be out of a job? No. Does the environmental wing of the Democratic Party side with the fringe groups who want to kill anyone who doesn't live in a teepee made from their own shit? No. Because the term "fringe" means just that.
Just like the fringe of the Republican party... the Democrats have their fringe. When the fringe becomes a majority voice in EITHER party (I am not convinced there are two parties anymore)... then we can revisit this issue. Otherwise it sounds like a bunch of partisan bluster.
I've got two words for anyone who doesn't think there are fringe groups in the Democratic Party as well "George Soros."
(I never said there WEREN'T fringe groups... I just do not equate those with any of the mainstream politics of even the Teabaggers.)
Take a step back from characterizing any disagreement with you as being someone from 'the other side'... and think for a moment before you buy into the phobia. Do I believe the Democratic Party in the Northeast is run by the Black Panthers? No, but I can cite several mainstream media (and no, not just Fox News) outlets who did stories on just that unsubstantiated nonsense. (google is your friend.) Giving the story ANY credence even "asking" if it is true means that they believe, even a little, that there was voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. Do the Black Panthers control the Congressional Black Caucus?
Take a step back from believing in the scare-tactics and realize that the Teabaggers are a crude implementation of Libertarian philosophy that doesn't want to overthrow government... just to pull its power down to constitutionally provided levels. There are nuts... just like there are nuts in the Democratic party... what you have to realize that if you are looking for boogey-men... you will find them. On either side of the aisle.
Go to opensecrets and find some of the interesting donors to Democratic (and Republican) candidates... the nutjob fringe of the Tea Party is the least of anyone's worries.