See, you say that as though it was a statement of fact. Yet, you have no proof to back up your assertion. The burden of proof lies with you.
Um, no, it doesn't. I've dealt with Comcast. I have no doubt in my mind they purposefully made the implementation bad. Why? Well, if they made it good, in the end it would cost them money.. no more charging for STB rentals, which get more expensive as you want more features... like a DVR.
Remember, this is a company that inspired an old woman to try and smash up one of their of their offices with a hammer, while other customers applauded.
Comcast and all its employees can burn in hell, and not too soon.
My city went one step further and built a FTTH network, offering voice, data and cable tv service. They launched shortly after Comcast bought out adelphia.. so I actually have real competition. Which is odd, because comcast seems to only be doing the usual tricks and pricing, even though the service my city operated company is much better and cheaper.
They want you to purchase a more expensive version to use more memory.
Have a link to pricing? I wasn't aware 64bit Vista was more than 32bit Vista... and if you buy retail ultimate, you get both on one DVD.. so I'm not sure I follow.
Argh. It does if the merchant raises prices JUST TO ACCEPT CARDS. The fact that non-card users subsidize the cost doesn't change the fact that its there.
The reason I know that the OP knows about credit card processing fees is because I AM THE OP. You still don't seem able to actually follow a thread, since you couldn't figure out that I am the OP.
Its/. I'm here to kill a few minutes, than leave. I really dont give a fuck who the person I'm replying to is, its not worth my time to double check.
Oh, and you're still wrong... IT DOES COST YOU, you're just not factoring the cost in.
No, I claimed they aren't an imminent threat. Please explain to how someone 15 yards away with a knife can kill you before you can squeeze a trigger. There is no reason to shoot them unless they attempt to advance on you to use that knife or have friends who are approaching you.
Well, for one, they pulled a knife, and two, they aren't leaving even with a gun pointed at them. I guess you neve heard the saying "you don't put on a condom unless you plan to fuck," huh?
And the standard that they are held to is the same one that you will be held to. Would a reasonable person have felt threatened in that same situation? You still haven't explained why a reasonable person would fear for his life just because some asshat refused to leave his porch. Close the fucking door and call the cops. If they kick your door down then shoot them until they hit the ground or the slide locks open. I have no problem with that. I do have a serious problem with blowing someone away over simple trespass.
No, the standard is LOWER for your average citizen, as it should be. After all, I as a normal citizen haven't undergone extensive training on how to handle dangerous situtations. I'm not exposed to them often.
You have not explained why I should have to cower and turn my back on someone who appeared on my property and refuses to leave. Why should a reasonable person NOT leave immediately when told, and more to the point, as my right to own and control my property, why should I have to depend on a third person to enforce what is really MY right?
The duty to retreat in my state does not extend to one's own residence. You are free to defend your residence with deadly force when faced with the crimes of burglary or arson. You are not allowed to do so for simple trespass.
Ahh... so someone can hold me hostage in my own home until the police show up? And they can come and go as they please to do so, so that I can't sleep at night sure that no one is going to try and break into my house?
The last time I looked robbery != trespassing. Yes, it did get to grand jury and they declined to indict him. I seem to recall a recent interview where he said that he was torn up by the whole affair and now wishes he had never left his house. He interjected himself into a situation where no innocent human life was at risk (he knew the house was unoccupied) and had to kill two people to save himself. Now he gets to live with that for the rest of his life.
Please provide a cite about your story aftermath claims.
No, I made such assumption. You are again putting words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote again: "Personally, I'd run from them if able to safely do so just because I'm not eager to take a human life. If my back is to the wall and/or I can't retreat safely then I'll do whatever is necessary to ensure that I'm going home in one piece."
If you had any reasoning skills, you'd know there's no way to be sure you can safely retreat. You're taking a risk by fleeing as well. So yes you are making assumptions.
I won't be chased out of my own house. There's a different standard in my state for defending the home and defending your person when out in the public space.
Sure you will. You wouldn't be able to live with yourself for taking a human life, remember?
I'll do what I need to do too, I'm just not going to blow someone away whose only crime is refusing to leave my porch. That's been the example all along and I'm still not convinced by your argument that such a person is an imminent threat to your life.
Sure it is... you don't know what their purpose is there. You never did explain to me why it would be ok for said person to show up in the first place. Maybe because you realize I'm right, that there is not legitimate reason, other than to be a threat? Just because someone leaves too doesn't mean they won't come back.
There you go again. I never made any such claim. All I said was that I'm not going to t
It is not any more mind-numbing, than, say, a store cashier's job. My wife used to work as one -- in a very busy New York department store -- while in high school. She was making just above the minimum wage... And graduated valedictorian. I bet, she was nicer to the customers, than most of the "professional" toll-collectors are, too...
Actually it is.. I worked as a cashier as well. For the toll collector, you're isolated your entire shift (most likely). That's the the case with the cashier at the store. Nor can you small talk with your customers in a toll booth... because you'll slow down the line. I was nicer to customers as well.. at first. Then I became exteremly indifferent. The pay was a big part of it... $4.25 / hr wasn't enough to make me want to do more than absolute bare minimum.
Sure. That's true about all jobs. But a small-office secretary, for another example, still makes about $10-15/hour and her pay is linked to her performance, rather than to how long she held the job (which is the deal with union-jobs nation-wide). Only a monopoly can so freely push their costs to the customers. The money wasted by this mismanagement (and outright corruption) would've been enough to finance another bridge or tunnel between New York and New Jersey...
A small office secretary has a lot more independance and responsbilities than a toll collector, and again isn't isolated all day breathing in the lovely emmissions from various cars & trucks. Its also noisy and more exposed to the elements than either of your examples.
I'm not sure how you evaluate performance of a toll collector; either they are on par with everyone else, or they aren't. Not much more in the way of metrics.. and pretty much EVERY job you have you will earn more just for being there longer. I'd be pissed if I wasn't getting a raise every year.
Besides, I'm not really sure what your gripe is.. many lanes are now ezpass only or equivolent, so the number of employees who's pay your bitching about.. well its rather insignificant compared to other costs of running the bridges, roads or whatever.
Ya, and the inability of people to actually say what they mean frustrates me. There's a difference between "it doesn't cost me anything" and "it doesn't cost me as much." The former is false, the latter is true.
You would rather I just assume what the OP meant, even though its not what he said. Why can't people just say what they ACTUALLY mean? And how do you know he DOES know about the credit card processing fees? You don't, and that could be why he didn't respond correcting himself.
No, it proves they want to talk to you face to face. Talking is not the same as using physical violence.
They can talk to me with letters or over the phone, there's no reason to actually show up.
Yes, they must leave. But just because they don't doesn't mean you get to blow them away absent any other indication of a threat.
I don't see why not, and I'll stand behind my assertion that their very presense is a threat. Otherwise, why show up?
I assume nothing. I'm only relaying to you what the standard is in my state. If you pulled your gun here in response to a thrown punch you are almost certainly going to jail.
So someone attacking you isn't a threat against your life? Pretty fucked up state if you ask me. How do you know they'll just hit once and stop? Are you willing to bet your life they will?
If they move closer then you can shoot them. You don't get to shoot someone who is 15 yards away with a knife. They aren't an imminent threat to you. And where the hell did I say that it was "ok" to draw a knife on someone? Stop putting words in my mouth.
You claim drawing a knife on someone, but from 15' away, isn't a threat. I really don't know what else you expect it to mean, so if you don't consider it a threat, it must be ok... b/c if there's no threat, there's no need to shoot in your mind.
You don't get to preemptively shoot people because you "can't be sure" what their intent is. If they demonstrate they have intent to do you serious bodily harm and if they have the means to carry out that threat, then you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Bull. Police get this exact same reason; they can shot if THEY feel threatened. That aren't sure of intent, they are only sure they feel threatened. The difference is police are trained, so we expect them to be cooler, but a normal citizen I'm willing to give more slack.
Again, I was only relaying to you the standard that I learned and how the use of deadly force is regulated in my state. In my state if you shot someone just because they refused to leave your porch you'd be going to jail. You can spin it any way you want but someone sitting on your porch is not threatening to take your life away from you.
Glad I don't live in your state. Sounds like an open inventation to someone who does want to do you harm, and apparently they fail to reconize your right to defend yourself.
As for, why you should run? Personally, I'd run from them if able to safely do so just because I'm not eager to take a human life. If my back is to the wall and/or I can't retreat safely then I'll do whatever is necessary to ensure that I'm going home in one piece. If it's not, then I'd rather not have to live with myself after ending a human life.
No, instead you'll be living in terror because you can't defend yourself and were chased out of your own home. Oh, and I'm not eager for it, but I'll have no problem with doing so if threatened.
If that bit of reasoning doesn't move you, then consider it from a more practical standpoint. Lawyers cost lots of money. If you shoot someone then you are going to need one, even if you live in one of the castle doctrine states. If it goes as far as the grand jury your legal bills will be in the thousands of dollars. If it goes to trial they will be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Didn't read the article about the man in TX that shot someone robbing HIS NEIGHBORS house, did you? Not even sure it got to a grand jury.
You sure you really want to shoot someone if you can walk away from the situation safely? This is an experience you really want to go through?
You assume you can always get away. I don't. I also don't want some scumbag who broke into my house doing it to someone else. I'd rather not go through it, but if someone else forces me into that spot, I'll do what I need to.
I'm not crying about them at all. I'm worried about my own soul. I've seen what happens to peopl
Yet people make it out all the time. You act as if crime, abusive parents and gangs are new, but they are not, they are as old as civialization, and yet the kids have managed fine in the past.
Ever think the high ways for collectors are because it IS a tedius mindnumbing job that they'd have a hard time filling and keeping filled without such high pay? Temporary employees are not great, turnover costs more than having steady employees. Also, with the amount of money collected, you want to be sure these people can be trusted... and that costs money.
Well, even if authorities didn't operate as you explained, just because tax payers pay for something doesn't mean they get access. I'd love to walk on to a military base and use a Comanche for my weekend errands, but I'd be shot on site if I step in the wrong place trying to do so.
A bullet which shattered your spine will cause count as a pre-existing condition, so no, its not being obese. If it is as you say, can you explain why medicare / medicaid are paying for diabetes meds, high blood pressure pills and gastric bypass / bandings?
But please, show me a health insurance that actually screens its applicants with a health exam first and uses that to determine coverage premiums? You won't be able to, because by law they are not allowed to.
no... having compulary education means everyone has a chance.. but if you choose not to pay attention, well that's you're own fault... but its not a metnal disease.
I would ask you, how is it that we pay more for health care "per capita" (that means per person, since you trolls often fail to understand things) yet have a lower life expectancy that fucking CUBA?
Simple. People eat and eat and eat, loads of crappy food by the way, ballon up to two or more times the weight of a normal person. We then pay for obesity related treatment, which holds of the inevitiable, but we can't really right obesity problems with pills and surgeries, so eventually our unhealthy lifestyle catches up to us.
Here in the United States, it's an "individual lifestyle choice" which will get you denied insurance and any coverage whatsoever.
Well it IS a lifestyle choice, but it doesn't get you denied insurance in the least. No only do you still get insurance, it pays for diabetes medication, knee replacement, and gastric bypass (which has its own set of problems).
Studies have shown that poor neighbourhoods are statistically "underserved" compared to wealthier neighbourhoods when it comes to food options. Meaning, there are fewer grocers or supermarkets, and those stores that do exist stock more highly processed and unhealthy foods. Kinda tough to follow food guidelines when you can't even buy the elements of a healthy diet.
I believe the solution is known as "a bus."
How is being born into a crime-ridden neighbourhood with shitty schools and no meaningful employment a "lifestyle choice"? You plunk any family into one of America's more notorious slums and let's see how those kids turn out.
Its a lifestyle choice when, instead of trying to learn and better yourself, you join the gangbangers dealing drugs and shooting up your own neighborhood.
Well, bank overdraft fees are your own stupid fault (not you personally). Get a credit union, and be done with banks screwing you over for every cent. My CU lets me overdraft twice a year with no penelty at all. My credit card from them is only 5.5%, or 7.75% for a rewards card.
See, this is where I seriously start to consider requiring sterilization, and if you can PROVE you can raise a kid, having it undone.
I know it sounds terrible at first... but think about it. The children ARE exactly the reason to do this. If your right to swing your fist ends at my face, surely your right to have kids ends when you cannot properly take care of them (and thus infringe THEIR right to be raised properly and with enough good food, etc etc).
Slashdot Mirror
See, you say that as though it was a statement of fact. Yet, you have no proof to back up your assertion. The burden of proof lies with you.
Um, no, it doesn't. I've dealt with Comcast. I have no doubt in my mind they purposefully made the implementation bad. Why? Well, if they made it good, in the end it would cost them money.. no more charging for STB rentals, which get more expensive as you want more features... like a DVR.
Remember, this is a company that inspired an old woman to try and smash up one of their of their offices with a hammer, while other customers applauded.
Comcast and all its employees can burn in hell, and not too soon.
My city went one step further and built a FTTH network, offering voice, data and cable tv service. They launched shortly after Comcast bought out adelphia.. so I actually have real competition. Which is odd, because comcast seems to only be doing the usual tricks and pricing, even though the service my city operated company is much better and cheaper.
They want you to purchase a more expensive version to use more memory.
Have a link to pricing? I wasn't aware 64bit Vista was more than 32bit Vista... and if you buy retail ultimate, you get both on one DVD.. so I'm not sure I follow.
Maybe she's on fb b/c the marriage is in trouble, not the other way around.
The law is nothing more than a legislative grant to content owners to use criminal laws to preserve their own profit.
How is it any different from laws against theft, which is also a criminal act?
Argh. It does if the merchant raises prices JUST TO ACCEPT CARDS. The fact that non-card users subsidize the cost doesn't change the fact that its there.
The reason I know that the OP knows about credit card processing fees is because I AM THE OP. You still don't seem able to actually follow a thread, since you couldn't figure out that I am the OP.
Its /. I'm here to kill a few minutes, than leave. I really dont give a fuck who the person I'm replying to is, its not worth my time to double check.
Oh, and you're still wrong... IT DOES COST YOU, you're just not factoring the cost in.
No, I claimed they aren't an imminent threat. Please explain to how someone 15 yards away with a knife can kill you before you can squeeze a trigger. There is no reason to shoot them unless they attempt to advance on you to use that knife or have friends who are approaching you.
Well, for one, they pulled a knife, and two, they aren't leaving even with a gun pointed at them. I guess you neve heard the saying "you don't put on a condom unless you plan to fuck," huh?
And the standard that they are held to is the same one that you will be held to. Would a reasonable person have felt threatened in that same situation? You still haven't explained why a reasonable person would fear for his life just because some asshat refused to leave his porch. Close the fucking door and call the cops. If they kick your door down then shoot them until they hit the ground or the slide locks open. I have no problem with that. I do have a serious problem with blowing someone away over simple trespass.
No, the standard is LOWER for your average citizen, as it should be. After all, I as a normal citizen haven't undergone extensive training on how to handle dangerous situtations. I'm not exposed to them often.
You have not explained why I should have to cower and turn my back on someone who appeared on my property and refuses to leave. Why should a reasonable person NOT leave immediately when told, and more to the point, as my right to own and control my property, why should I have to depend on a third person to enforce what is really MY right?
The duty to retreat in my state does not extend to one's own residence. You are free to defend your residence with deadly force when faced with the crimes of burglary or arson. You are not allowed to do so for simple trespass.
Ahh... so someone can hold me hostage in my own home until the police show up? And they can come and go as they please to do so, so that I can't sleep at night sure that no one is going to try and break into my house?
The last time I looked robbery != trespassing. Yes, it did get to grand jury and they declined to indict him. I seem to recall a recent interview where he said that he was torn up by the whole affair and now wishes he had never left his house. He interjected himself into a situation where no innocent human life was at risk (he knew the house was unoccupied) and had to kill two people to save himself. Now he gets to live with that for the rest of his life.
Please provide a cite about your story aftermath claims.
No, I made such assumption. You are again putting words into my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote again: "Personally, I'd run from them if able to safely do so just because I'm not eager to take a human life. If my back is to the wall and/or I can't retreat safely then I'll do whatever is necessary to ensure that I'm going home in one piece."
If you had any reasoning skills, you'd know there's no way to be sure you can safely retreat. You're taking a risk by fleeing as well. So yes you are making assumptions.
I won't be chased out of my own house. There's a different standard in my state for defending the home and defending your person when out in the public space.
Sure you will. You wouldn't be able to live with yourself for taking a human life, remember?
I'll do what I need to do too, I'm just not going to blow someone away whose only crime is refusing to leave my porch. That's been the example all along and I'm still not convinced by your argument that such a person is an imminent threat to your life.
Sure it is... you don't know what their purpose is there. You never did explain to me why it would be ok for said person to show up in the first place. Maybe because you realize I'm right, that there is not legitimate reason, other than to be a threat? Just because someone leaves too doesn't mean they won't come back.
There you go again. I never made any such claim. All I said was that I'm not going to t
It is not any more mind-numbing, than, say, a store cashier's job. My wife used to work as one -- in a very busy New York department store -- while in high school. She was making just above the minimum wage... And graduated valedictorian. I bet, she was nicer to the customers, than most of the "professional" toll-collectors are, too...
Actually it is.. I worked as a cashier as well. For the toll collector, you're isolated your entire shift (most likely). That's the the case with the cashier at the store. Nor can you small talk with your customers in a toll booth... because you'll slow down the line. I was nicer to customers as well.. at first. Then I became exteremly indifferent. The pay was a big part of it... $4.25 / hr wasn't enough to make me want to do more than absolute bare minimum.
Sure. That's true about all jobs. But a small-office secretary, for another example, still makes about $10-15/hour and her pay is linked to her performance, rather than to how long she held the job (which is the deal with union-jobs nation-wide). Only a monopoly can so freely push their costs to the customers. The money wasted by this mismanagement (and outright corruption) would've been enough to finance another bridge or tunnel between New York and New Jersey...
A small office secretary has a lot more independance and responsbilities than a toll collector, and again isn't isolated all day breathing in the lovely emmissions from various cars & trucks. Its also noisy and more exposed to the elements than either of your examples.
I'm not sure how you evaluate performance of a toll collector; either they are on par with everyone else, or they aren't. Not much more in the way of metrics.. and pretty much EVERY job you have you will earn more just for being there longer. I'd be pissed if I wasn't getting a raise every year.
Besides, I'm not really sure what your gripe is.. many lanes are now ezpass only or equivolent, so the number of employees who's pay your bitching about.. well its rather insignificant compared to other costs of running the bridges, roads or whatever.
Um, well the fact that they now get to play at all?
Might want to research how this country was founded before you start believing this.
The ridiculous, hateful, juvenile spiteful posts are all protected free speech.
In RL, there is no anonymity.
Sure there is. Plamplets which have no one listed as author, pseudonyms fall under anonymous as well.
Every action has a reaction. Maybe more people need to learn that.
That seems to be the rallying cry for people that want to censor others.
Ya, and the inability of people to actually say what they mean frustrates me. There's a difference between "it doesn't cost me anything" and "it doesn't cost me as much." The former is false, the latter is true.
You would rather I just assume what the OP meant, even though its not what he said. Why can't people just say what they ACTUALLY mean? And how do you know he DOES know about the credit card processing fees? You don't, and that could be why he didn't respond correcting himself.
No, it proves they want to talk to you face to face. Talking is not the same as using physical violence.
They can talk to me with letters or over the phone, there's no reason to actually show up.
Yes, they must leave. But just because they don't doesn't mean you get to blow them away absent any other indication of a threat.
I don't see why not, and I'll stand behind my assertion that their very presense is a threat. Otherwise, why show up?
I assume nothing. I'm only relaying to you what the standard is in my state. If you pulled your gun here in response to a thrown punch you are almost certainly going to jail.
So someone attacking you isn't a threat against your life? Pretty fucked up state if you ask me. How do you know they'll just hit once and stop? Are you willing to bet your life they will?
If they move closer then you can shoot them. You don't get to shoot someone who is 15 yards away with a knife. They aren't an imminent threat to you. And where the hell did I say that it was "ok" to draw a knife on someone? Stop putting words in my mouth.
You claim drawing a knife on someone, but from 15' away, isn't a threat. I really don't know what else you expect it to mean, so if you don't consider it a threat, it must be ok... b/c if there's no threat, there's no need to shoot in your mind.
You don't get to preemptively shoot people because you "can't be sure" what their intent is. If they demonstrate they have intent to do you serious bodily harm and if they have the means to carry out that threat, then you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Bull. Police get this exact same reason; they can shot if THEY feel threatened. That aren't sure of intent, they are only sure they feel threatened. The difference is police are trained, so we expect them to be cooler, but a normal citizen I'm willing to give more slack.
Again, I was only relaying to you the standard that I learned and how the use of deadly force is regulated in my state. In my state if you shot someone just because they refused to leave your porch you'd be going to jail. You can spin it any way you want but someone sitting on your porch is not threatening to take your life away from you.
Glad I don't live in your state. Sounds like an open inventation to someone who does want to do you harm, and apparently they fail to reconize your right to defend yourself.
As for, why you should run? Personally, I'd run from them if able to safely do so just because I'm not eager to take a human life. If my back is to the wall and/or I can't retreat safely then I'll do whatever is necessary to ensure that I'm going home in one piece. If it's not, then I'd rather not have to live with myself after ending a human life.
No, instead you'll be living in terror because you can't defend yourself and were chased out of your own home. Oh, and I'm not eager for it, but I'll have no problem with doing so if threatened.
If that bit of reasoning doesn't move you, then consider it from a more practical standpoint. Lawyers cost lots of money. If you shoot someone then you are going to need one, even if you live in one of the castle doctrine states. If it goes as far as the grand jury your legal bills will be in the thousands of dollars. If it goes to trial they will be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Didn't read the article about the man in TX that shot someone robbing HIS NEIGHBORS house, did you? Not even sure it got to a grand jury.
You sure you really want to shoot someone if you can walk away from the situation safely? This is an experience you really want to go through?
You assume you can always get away. I don't. I also don't want some scumbag who broke into my house doing it to someone else. I'd rather not go through it, but if someone else forces me into that spot, I'll do what I need to.
I'm not crying about them at all. I'm worried about my own soul. I've seen what happens to peopl
Yet people make it out all the time. You act as if crime, abusive parents and gangs are new, but they are not, they are as old as civialization, and yet the kids have managed fine in the past.
Hmm... seems like alot of that information would be better stored in Active Directory..
Ever think the high ways for collectors are because it IS a tedius mindnumbing job that they'd have a hard time filling and keeping filled without such high pay? Temporary employees are not great, turnover costs more than having steady employees. Also, with the amount of money collected, you want to be sure these people can be trusted... and that costs money.
Well, even if authorities didn't operate as you explained, just because tax payers pay for something doesn't mean they get access. I'd love to walk on to a military base and use a Comanche for my weekend errands, but I'd be shot on site if I step in the wrong place trying to do so.
A bullet which shattered your spine will cause count as a pre-existing condition, so no, its not being obese. If it is as you say, can you explain why medicare / medicaid are paying for diabetes meds, high blood pressure pills and gastric bypass / bandings?
But please, show me a health insurance that actually screens its applicants with a health exam first and uses that to determine coverage premiums? You won't be able to, because by law they are not allowed to.
no... having compulary education means everyone has a chance.. but if you choose not to pay attention, well that's you're own fault... but its not a metnal disease.
Who said wealthy? There's a difference between "wealthy" and "our family has adequate food, water, and shelter."
I would ask you, how is it that we pay more for health care "per capita" (that means per person, since you trolls often fail to understand things) yet have a lower life expectancy that fucking CUBA?
Simple. People eat and eat and eat, loads of crappy food by the way, ballon up to two or more times the weight of a normal person. We then pay for obesity related treatment, which holds of the inevitiable, but we can't really right obesity problems with pills and surgeries, so eventually our unhealthy lifestyle catches up to us.
Here in the United States, it's an "individual lifestyle choice" which will get you denied insurance and any coverage whatsoever.
Well it IS a lifestyle choice, but it doesn't get you denied insurance in the least. No only do you still get insurance, it pays for diabetes medication, knee replacement, and gastric bypass (which has its own set of problems).
Studies have shown that poor neighbourhoods are statistically "underserved" compared to wealthier neighbourhoods when it comes to food options. Meaning, there are fewer grocers or supermarkets, and those stores that do exist stock more highly processed and unhealthy foods. Kinda tough to follow food guidelines when you can't even buy the elements of a healthy diet.
I believe the solution is known as "a bus."
How is being born into a crime-ridden neighbourhood with shitty schools and no meaningful employment a "lifestyle choice"? You plunk any family into one of America's more notorious slums and let's see how those kids turn out.
Its a lifestyle choice when, instead of trying to learn and better yourself, you join the gangbangers dealing drugs and shooting up your own neighborhood.
When did they classify stupidity as an actual mental condition needing treatment?
Well, bank overdraft fees are your own stupid fault (not you personally). Get a credit union, and be done with banks screwing you over for every cent. My CU lets me overdraft twice a year with no penelty at all. My credit card from them is only 5.5%, or 7.75% for a rewards card.
See, this is where I seriously start to consider requiring sterilization, and if you can PROVE you can raise a kid, having it undone.
I know it sounds terrible at first... but think about it. The children ARE exactly the reason to do this. If your right to swing your fist ends at my face, surely your right to have kids ends when you cannot properly take care of them (and thus infringe THEIR right to be raised properly and with enough good food, etc etc).