Let me guess, your BFF told you that it's OK to rip stuff off as long as you say that you did do because of Fair Use. And besides, nobody should be able to make money off of making movies anyway, since all actors, screenwriters, camera operators, makeup artists, lighting techs, editors, CGI teams, set desigers, costumers, directors, and everyone else involved are just capitalist pigs and should be forced to make stuff you want, but for free. Does that about cover it?
The greed of the pigoplist shitheads is just getting out of control with blatant abuses of the law.
The pub owner may indeed be greedy by using imagery from the movie in marketing her own business, but perhaps you should stop short of calling her a pig and a shithead, and just encourage her to pay an artist of her own choosing to create marketing images that don't rely on ripped off work done by people that Peter Jackson paid to work for him. Anyway, shouldn't you be in school right now?
What about shutting down the US Postal Service because of all the illegal activity that enables?
OK, we get it. You like sites that give you access to ripped-off material. It's a shame you're such a chicken that you won't just come right out and say that's what you're about.
Regardless, please work on your analogies. You're not doing your agenda any good by trying to compare a postal service that has a long history of criminally prosecuting people who mis-use it with a business set up expressly to profit from aggregious copyright infringement. A business that expressly wooed pirates (and paid them to rip things off, making rather a show of doing so). That you can't grasp the difference between a common carrier that aggressively pursues criminal mis-use and an operation set up and run expressly to encourage and profit from crime is... never mind. You know the difference, and you're being a disengenuous twit about it.
Hey, don't people use cars as getaway cars... let's shut down Ford and GM while we're at it!
Would you like to point to a GM marketing campaign and reward program aimed at making sure their products are used in bank robberies, and which gets a piece of loot whenever a criminal uses a Chevy? Please, do. Or better yet, please just stop with the completely insincere outrage. It's utterly transparent.
Yeah, except you're unable to succinctly counter his perfectly reasonable point, and instead resort to good old fashioned cowardly ad hominem attack, with a side helping of class baiting. Occupy Slashdot, Man! Yeah!
I'm just now listening to TAL's retraction show and
Listening to Ira's interview recording with Daisey on the air yesterday, I was struck by how much Daisey sounded like a narcissistic emo weasle. Trying desparately to avoid direct answers to some of the most important questions, admitting fault on basic issues of fact where he was caught red-handed, but then spinning like crazy to avoid being seen as unethical. All drama, and no real contrition. Essentially, he made a long, pregnant-pause, faux-apologetic display of being sorry he got caught, but not sorry he was lying in the first place. And he cites artistic license as the get-out-of-ethical-jail-free card. It was really painul to listen to.
OK, so hexane poisoning is a "topic." Another topic would be Apple's plans for a Mars colony. Just because you can name a topic doesn't mean that the actual issue at hand is meaningful. The guy who made it meaningful for legions of We Hate Apple whiners has been shown to have been completely BS-ing. So, it's your turn to be specific on the scale and nature of the issue, rather than just running around and shouting "hexane poisoning is a topic!"
Which topic is that? That people from all over China are lining up to work at places like Foxconn, that conditions don't even begin to resemble his characterizations of them, and that every economy that hasn't already matured to the degree of a Germany or a US has people who don't work short shifts with long coffee breaks while checking their smart phone for frivalous e-mails and lolcats from the friends they'll be overeating with later that evening? Yes, that "actual topic" is... truthy. What's your "actual" point? Please be specific.
I'm addressing the notion that what a dog signals shouldn't be considered a viable source of probable cause.
I'd also disagree with the notion that someone who doesn't work with such dogs, and especially with a particular dog, would even know what they were seeing when it comes to how, whether, and when the dog is signaling and what the dog is signaling. And I don't have much trouble with the notion that a dog picking up on a likely nosefull in an area where people routinely smuggle guns, contraband, cash, and people makes it unreasonable to check it out. When that stuff is in the car, just like the dog guesses, done deal. When there's nothing there (because the dog's reading some off the tires, or it's far too windy, etc, or you actually are dealing with an Eeeeevil Cartoon Villain Cop Who Just Hates You Personally), it's just another pass through a border area that amounts to nothing.
I don't think that's analogous to nearly unfalsifiable drug dog signals.
Nobody is asking you (who heard a scream) to qualify what was later found to be evidence of a crime. Likewise, the dog is just saying, "Hey! You know that thing you trained me to notice if we come across it, and which I can detect at a tiny fraction of the strength that you can, with your stupid primate nose? I think I just noticed it." Just like you might say, "I may not hear a lot of non-actor women screaming in real life, but I think I know it when I hear it. Over there."
I think it's ridiculous that such a thing is even considered probable cause in the first place.
Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie. I have watched them unerringly find one of three species of birds (while ignoring all others) on the merest whiff, in a steady breeze, from a hundred yards away. And that bird is always, always there. For responding, accurately, to specific smells, I trust those dogs' noses better than any other device, mechanism, or technique I have ever witnessed. I would say it was not possible if I hadn't seen it over, and over again hundreds and hundreds of times, like clockwork.
And just so you know, we've tested with live and (recently, as in 10 minutes ago) dead birds. It only takes a green dog about five encounters to know the difference between the two after the initial confusion. After that, they never get it wrong. Dogs trained professionally to signal on things like explosives and narcotics are absolutely to be considered worthy indicators of probable cause.
They are unconstitutional search and seizure checkpoints within the US
Kind of like the customs facility at, say, the Indianapolis International Airport? Not exactly sitting on the border, is it. I presume that you consider any searches they do there to be unconstitutional, right?
You obviously don't know anything about dogs used in this way. They're not clones. They use a variety of breeds with completely different behavioral traits, sensitivities, specialties, and trainging backgrounds. The handlers have to know each individual dog, because even using a standard suite of training techniques, you'll get different tells once the dog gets it figured out. Every one of them is different. Sort of like some people are responding to this rationally, and you're responding to it with paranoia.
so that we (the public) have a way to refute the evidence against us.
That the dog signals something of interest isn't evidence. It's part of the probable cause picture. Just like when you tell a cop that you heard someone next door screaming for help. That's not evidence (yet), but it's part of the decision making process that the cop has to consider when he acts.
Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border?
How do you feel when you go through customs/security at an airport, get on a plane, and spend three hours flying at several hundred MPH over your country before you actually cross the border? What you're saying is that either the checkpoint should be on an infinitely small line between two countries, or perhaps several miles out to sea where international waters begin... or, no customs/security checks at all. Right? Please be specific.
I don't care how you live your life. But if it were my daughter or sister graduating, I'd still think you were an ass for making the event about your weed politics.
I'd say the same thing. Anyone who decides to make someone else's graduation ceremony about their own pet political cause is an ass. Simple as that.
There's nothing adolescent about freedom
But there is when it comes to deciding to make your focus on freedom all about wearing pro-weed sloganeering to someone else's academic graduation. Why not just stand up during the ceremony and start chanting and holding up Occupy The Graduation signs? Freedom, man! Nobody should be allowed to graduate in peace while there are people who can't smoke dope while in line at the DMV, and enjoy a little meth while on a break at work.
Adults use their freedom like they're not 12-year olds. There's nothing adolescent about freedom, but there are stupid, adolescent ways to show your contempt for it and for the people around you. Putting imaginary words in my mouth doesn't change that.
Yeah, or you could have used your sister's graduation as an occasion to make it about her instead of your I Must Smoke Dope top priority. I'm not talking about your decision to go along with the required decorum by turning the shirt inside out. I'm talking about your making the decision, of all things you could have worn, to wear that bit of adolescent nonsense to her formal event. Man, do you even listen to yourself?
Yet you see just as many bullshit statistics thrown around here as on Fox News comment sections.
Why cite Fox News comment sections in paricular? Have you ever bothered to look at the comments at MSNBC, the NYT, the Huffington Post "news" items, the BBC, Al Jazeera, ABC News, CNN, or any other outlet? By choosing one and implying that the rate there is the highest, you're guilty of exactly what you're describing.
Never. Mind. Two words. Do you say that a shopkeeper should alwaysmind the store?
"Never mind" is a directive. It's a way of saying, "Never again put your mind on [whatever]," As in, "Don't bother paying attention (with your mind) to something that isn't worth considering."
I only pick on grammar and spelling once a week, and you just happened to be in the line of fire at the right time. You should know that you beat out someone who used the non-word "alot" three times in one post (never once saying "alittle" about something else!), and topped it off with a spectacular display of mis-used apostrophes and the usual utter misunderstanding of the difference between "loose" and "lose." Of course it is an honor just to be nominated.
But what happens after a month when those computers have their OS reinstalled
Many, possibly most businesses would be permanently ruined by going with revenue and being unable to make payroll for a month. A month might as well be a hundred years. It would be catastrophic, economically.
No, I trust my own nose when someone who is reeking of booze and can't walk straight should be noted as such. Then you take them for a proper blood test. People who are trained for that and see it every day can tell the difference between (literally) stinking drunk and, say, being in a diabetic crash.
Holy crap I'd be pissed off if my lawyer let something like this slide.
I think you're missing the point. The defense attorney's would have asked for proof that the devices had been calibrated. And the falsely filled-out paperwork would have been turned over, showing just that. You're saying that the defense attorney's should have asked for proof that the documentation wasn't fraudulent. Which would have been... what? Paperwork from a non-existing third party auditor? That's why the cases are in question.
Mind you, most cops know exactly when they're dealing with a drunk. And the drunks know when they're drunk. I would hope that this blunder only impacts very questionable/marginal cases, and not those where the driver was obviously and aggregiously under the influence.
Maybe if there were more jobs to go around and less poverty they could pay it themselves?
Excellent. The president should just say that there should be more jobs, then. We'll worry later about what they'll be doing, who will be buying whatever it is they spend their time producing, and who will cover the costs. Or are you suggesting more debt and busy-work jobs?
Or are you arguing for government policies that do less in the way of preventing the business growth that actually causes more jobs to be available?
Can I complain about the fact that I as a productive member of society am going to end up paying a larger share of taxes because this guy is going to end up consuming more in social services than he contributes in taxes, because nobody will actually employ him to his full potential?
Were you already complaining? Because he was living off of you already, and his "potential" was - by his choice - only being used in destructive/non-productive ways. He wasn't paying taxes, he was simply living off of yours, and feeding kids off of yours. Or were you thinking of a system where you could force him to work in a particular area, and force an employer to trust him despite his obvious contempt for that sort of trust? Would you personally trust him with your equipment, data, and your relationships with your trusted partners and customers, and their sensitive data? Really?
Fox sells a world view that, while fraught with fears and enemies
Have you ever watched CNN, MSNBC, etc., or listened to NPR or the BBC? I thought not.
familiar territory to a certain mindset
Likewise. In fact you're doing what it is you're complaining about, right now, yourself.
cannot accept the fact that the world is rapidly evolving and changing
You obviously like to complain, but clearly pay no attention to what's actually said. The world view they pitch is that the way to react to a changing world (something they report on and describe every day) is to do so personally, and through one's choices in how to do business. To see it as a challenge. The world view that you prefer - and which is pitched by essentially every other media outlet of any size - is the retrograde, comfort-zone, aging-hippies beer goggles view. Specifically, The Nanny State is the solution, and the government, fueled by taxes on the minority of the country's citizens (who are to be hated for their ability to pay such taxes) is more able to efficiently react to changes and to micro-manage businesses, personal lives, and each and every relationship between people, businesses, and other entities. I realize that you prefer that message over the message that some of Fox's op-ed types speak. But your message of "hate" is so obviously incorrect (and irony, I might add) that your condescending reference to "certain people" is shown for what it really is.
Ah, I see. Because I know that you can go to your local bank (or the airport!) and exchange currencies, I must be an Eeeeeevil 1%-er henchman! So tell me, how is junior high school debate club going? Has anyone been honest enough, yet, to point out that just because your school system is running a self-esteem-based program wherein nobody is ever told that they're not doing something well, that... your rhetorical skills are stuck on 10-year-old-girl mode? That was pretty resourceful, though, using Google to look up "rich guy that does something I can't understand that involves money and trade and stuff, and some idiots in Occupy Des Moines say I should hate him because he does that stuff" so you could have your cartoon villain reference while attempting your lamely ad hominem little jab.
Is it all embarassing to have nothing of substance to say, or worse, to know that anything you want to say will be intellectually bankrupt, thus forcing you to embarass yourself instead with lazy, tone-deaf attempts at insult? Does it make you cry, and text your girlfriends, if your mom lets you use her phone? Please return to ripping off Justin Bieber files, and leave discussion about things like imports and exports to people who don't think it's, like, so unfair that people don't all want to give away what they produce every day, and some of them actually live on the other side of your national border. It's quite possible, in fact, that your My Little Pony collection was made by someone who lives in another country, but who was still able to get paid for that effort despite the fact that you paid in US dollars at the retail level. Wow! So, like, Eeeeevil! That should, like, totally be stopped, or something, because there shouldn't have to be, like, banks and stuff because it's all so mean and stuff, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I gather you have never heard of fair use.
What are you, twelve? No, I'm going with eleven.
Let me guess, your BFF told you that it's OK to rip stuff off as long as you say that you did do because of Fair Use. And besides, nobody should be able to make money off of making movies anyway, since all actors, screenwriters, camera operators, makeup artists, lighting techs, editors, CGI teams, set desigers, costumers, directors, and everyone else involved are just capitalist pigs and should be forced to make stuff you want, but for free. Does that about cover it?
The greed of the pigoplist shitheads is just getting out of control with blatant abuses of the law.
The pub owner may indeed be greedy by using imagery from the movie in marketing her own business, but perhaps you should stop short of calling her a pig and a shithead, and just encourage her to pay an artist of her own choosing to create marketing images that don't rely on ripped off work done by people that Peter Jackson paid to work for him. Anyway, shouldn't you be in school right now?
What about shutting down the US Postal Service because of all the illegal activity that enables?
OK, we get it. You like sites that give you access to ripped-off material. It's a shame you're such a chicken that you won't just come right out and say that's what you're about.
... never mind. You know the difference, and you're being a disengenuous twit about it.
Regardless, please work on your analogies. You're not doing your agenda any good by trying to compare a postal service that has a long history of criminally prosecuting people who mis-use it with a business set up expressly to profit from aggregious copyright infringement. A business that expressly wooed pirates (and paid them to rip things off, making rather a show of doing so). That you can't grasp the difference between a common carrier that aggressively pursues criminal mis-use and an operation set up and run expressly to encourage and profit from crime is
Hey, don't people use cars as getaway cars ... let's shut down Ford and GM while we're at it!
Would you like to point to a GM marketing campaign and reward program aimed at making sure their products are used in bank robberies, and which gets a piece of loot whenever a criminal uses a Chevy? Please, do. Or better yet, please just stop with the completely insincere outrage. It's utterly transparent.
Yeah, except you're unable to succinctly counter his perfectly reasonable point, and instead resort to good old fashioned cowardly ad hominem attack, with a side helping of class baiting. Occupy Slashdot, Man! Yeah!
I'm just now listening to TAL's retraction show and
Listening to Ira's interview recording with Daisey on the air yesterday, I was struck by how much Daisey sounded like a narcissistic emo weasle. Trying desparately to avoid direct answers to some of the most important questions, admitting fault on basic issues of fact where he was caught red-handed, but then spinning like crazy to avoid being seen as unethical. All drama, and no real contrition. Essentially, he made a long, pregnant-pause, faux-apologetic display of being sorry he got caught, but not sorry he was lying in the first place. And he cites artistic license as the get-out-of-ethical-jail-free card. It was really painul to listen to.
OK, so hexane poisoning is a "topic." Another topic would be Apple's plans for a Mars colony. Just because you can name a topic doesn't mean that the actual issue at hand is meaningful. The guy who made it meaningful for legions of We Hate Apple whiners has been shown to have been completely BS-ing. So, it's your turn to be specific on the scale and nature of the issue, rather than just running around and shouting "hexane poisoning is a topic!"
The stories, yes. The actual topics, no.
Which topic is that? That people from all over China are lining up to work at places like Foxconn, that conditions don't even begin to resemble his characterizations of them, and that every economy that hasn't already matured to the degree of a Germany or a US has people who don't work short shifts with long coffee breaks while checking their smart phone for frivalous e-mails and lolcats from the friends they'll be overeating with later that evening? Yes, that "actual topic" is ... truthy. What's your "actual" point? Please be specific.
This is either satire, or you are everything that's wrong with working with other people.
Who are you replying to, exactly?
I'm addressing the notion that what a dog signals shouldn't be considered a viable source of probable cause.
I'd also disagree with the notion that someone who doesn't work with such dogs, and especially with a particular dog, would even know what they were seeing when it comes to how, whether, and when the dog is signaling and what the dog is signaling. And I don't have much trouble with the notion that a dog picking up on a likely nosefull in an area where people routinely smuggle guns, contraband, cash, and people makes it unreasonable to check it out. When that stuff is in the car, just like the dog guesses, done deal. When there's nothing there (because the dog's reading some off the tires, or it's far too windy, etc, or you actually are dealing with an Eeeeevil Cartoon Villain Cop Who Just Hates You Personally), it's just another pass through a border area that amounts to nothing.
I don't think that's analogous to nearly unfalsifiable drug dog signals.
Nobody is asking you (who heard a scream) to qualify what was later found to be evidence of a crime. Likewise, the dog is just saying, "Hey! You know that thing you trained me to notice if we come across it, and which I can detect at a tiny fraction of the strength that you can, with your stupid primate nose? I think I just noticed it." Just like you might say, "I may not hear a lot of non-actor women screaming in real life, but I think I know it when I hear it. Over there."
I think it's ridiculous that such a thing is even considered probable cause in the first place.
Really, if we could work it out, I'd take you out into the field with one of my dogs. They never lie. I have watched them unerringly find one of three species of birds (while ignoring all others) on the merest whiff, in a steady breeze, from a hundred yards away. And that bird is always, always there. For responding, accurately, to specific smells, I trust those dogs' noses better than any other device, mechanism, or technique I have ever witnessed. I would say it was not possible if I hadn't seen it over, and over again hundreds and hundreds of times, like clockwork.
And just so you know, we've tested with live and (recently, as in 10 minutes ago) dead birds. It only takes a green dog about five encounters to know the difference between the two after the initial confusion. After that, they never get it wrong. Dogs trained professionally to signal on things like explosives and narcotics are absolutely to be considered worthy indicators of probable cause.
They are unconstitutional search and seizure checkpoints within the US
Kind of like the customs facility at, say, the Indianapolis International Airport? Not exactly sitting on the border, is it. I presume that you consider any searches they do there to be unconstitutional, right?
Perhaps they should train them in a uniform way
You obviously don't know anything about dogs used in this way. They're not clones. They use a variety of breeds with completely different behavioral traits, sensitivities, specialties, and trainging backgrounds. The handlers have to know each individual dog, because even using a standard suite of training techniques, you'll get different tells once the dog gets it figured out. Every one of them is different. Sort of like some people are responding to this rationally, and you're responding to it with paranoia.
so that we (the public) have a way to refute the evidence against us.
That the dog signals something of interest isn't evidence. It's part of the probable cause picture. Just like when you tell a cop that you heard someone next door screaming for help. That's not evidence (yet), but it's part of the decision making process that the cop has to consider when he acts.
Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border?
How do you feel when you go through customs/security at an airport, get on a plane, and spend three hours flying at several hundred MPH over your country before you actually cross the border? What you're saying is that either the checkpoint should be on an infinitely small line between two countries, or perhaps several miles out to sea where international waters begin ... or, no customs/security checks at all. Right? Please be specific.
I don't care how you live your life. But if it were my daughter or sister graduating, I'd still think you were an ass for making the event about your weed politics.
I'd say the same thing. Anyone who decides to make someone else's graduation ceremony about their own pet political cause is an ass. Simple as that.
There's nothing adolescent about freedom
But there is when it comes to deciding to make your focus on freedom all about wearing pro-weed sloganeering to someone else's academic graduation. Why not just stand up during the ceremony and start chanting and holding up Occupy The Graduation signs? Freedom, man! Nobody should be allowed to graduate in peace while there are people who can't smoke dope while in line at the DMV, and enjoy a little meth while on a break at work.
Adults use their freedom like they're not 12-year olds. There's nothing adolescent about freedom, but there are stupid, adolescent ways to show your contempt for it and for the people around you. Putting imaginary words in my mouth doesn't change that.
Yeah, or you could have used your sister's graduation as an occasion to make it about her instead of your I Must Smoke Dope top priority. I'm not talking about your decision to go along with the required decorum by turning the shirt inside out. I'm talking about your making the decision, of all things you could have worn, to wear that bit of adolescent nonsense to her formal event. Man, do you even listen to yourself?
Yet you see just as many bullshit statistics thrown around here as on Fox News comment sections.
Why cite Fox News comment sections in paricular? Have you ever bothered to look at the comments at MSNBC, the NYT, the Huffington Post "news" items, the BBC, Al Jazeera, ABC News, CNN, or any other outlet? By choosing one and implying that the rate there is the highest, you're guilty of exactly what you're describing.
Never. Mind. Two words. Do you say that a shopkeeper should alwaysmind the store?
"Never mind" is a directive. It's a way of saying, "Never again put your mind on [whatever]," As in, "Don't bother paying attention (with your mind) to something that isn't worth considering."
I only pick on grammar and spelling once a week, and you just happened to be in the line of fire at the right time. You should know that you beat out someone who used the non-word "alot" three times in one post (never once saying "alittle" about something else!), and topped it off with a spectacular display of mis-used apostrophes and the usual utter misunderstanding of the difference between "loose" and "lose." Of course it is an honor just to be nominated.
But what happens after a month when those computers have their OS reinstalled
Many, possibly most businesses would be permanently ruined by going with revenue and being unable to make payroll for a month. A month might as well be a hundred years. It would be catastrophic, economically.
No, I trust my own nose when someone who is reeking of booze and can't walk straight should be noted as such. Then you take them for a proper blood test. People who are trained for that and see it every day can tell the difference between (literally) stinking drunk and, say, being in a diabetic crash.
Holy crap I'd be pissed off if my lawyer let something like this slide.
I think you're missing the point. The defense attorney's would have asked for proof that the devices had been calibrated. And the falsely filled-out paperwork would have been turned over, showing just that. You're saying that the defense attorney's should have asked for proof that the documentation wasn't fraudulent. Which would have been ... what? Paperwork from a non-existing third party auditor? That's why the cases are in question.
Mind you, most cops know exactly when they're dealing with a drunk. And the drunks know when they're drunk. I would hope that this blunder only impacts very questionable/marginal cases, and not those where the driver was obviously and aggregiously under the influence.
Maybe if there were more jobs to go around and less poverty they could pay it themselves?
Excellent. The president should just say that there should be more jobs, then. We'll worry later about what they'll be doing, who will be buying whatever it is they spend their time producing, and who will cover the costs. Or are you suggesting more debt and busy-work jobs?
Or are you arguing for government policies that do less in the way of preventing the business growth that actually causes more jobs to be available?
Can I complain about the fact that I as a productive member of society am going to end up paying a larger share of taxes because this guy is going to end up consuming more in social services than he contributes in taxes, because nobody will actually employ him to his full potential?
Were you already complaining? Because he was living off of you already, and his "potential" was - by his choice - only being used in destructive/non-productive ways. He wasn't paying taxes, he was simply living off of yours, and feeding kids off of yours. Or were you thinking of a system where you could force him to work in a particular area, and force an employer to trust him despite his obvious contempt for that sort of trust? Would you personally trust him with your equipment, data, and your relationships with your trusted partners and customers, and their sensitive data? Really?
Fox sells a world view that, while fraught with fears and enemies
Have you ever watched CNN, MSNBC, etc., or listened to NPR or the BBC? I thought not.
familiar territory to a certain mindset
Likewise. In fact you're doing what it is you're complaining about, right now, yourself.
cannot accept the fact that the world is rapidly evolving and changing
You obviously like to complain, but clearly pay no attention to what's actually said. The world view they pitch is that the way to react to a changing world (something they report on and describe every day) is to do so personally, and through one's choices in how to do business. To see it as a challenge. The world view that you prefer - and which is pitched by essentially every other media outlet of any size - is the retrograde, comfort-zone, aging-hippies beer goggles view. Specifically, The Nanny State is the solution, and the government, fueled by taxes on the minority of the country's citizens (who are to be hated for their ability to pay such taxes) is more able to efficiently react to changes and to micro-manage businesses, personal lives, and each and every relationship between people, businesses, and other entities. I realize that you prefer that message over the message that some of Fox's op-ed types speak. But your message of "hate" is so obviously incorrect (and irony, I might add) that your condescending reference to "certain people" is shown for what it really is.
Ah, I see. Because I know that you can go to your local bank (or the airport!) and exchange currencies, I must be an Eeeeeevil 1%-er henchman! So tell me, how is junior high school debate club going? Has anyone been honest enough, yet, to point out that just because your school system is running a self-esteem-based program wherein nobody is ever told that they're not doing something well, that ... your rhetorical skills are stuck on 10-year-old-girl mode? That was pretty resourceful, though, using Google to look up "rich guy that does something I can't understand that involves money and trade and stuff, and some idiots in Occupy Des Moines say I should hate him because he does that stuff" so you could have your cartoon villain reference while attempting your lamely ad hominem little jab.
Is it all embarassing to have nothing of substance to say, or worse, to know that anything you want to say will be intellectually bankrupt, thus forcing you to embarass yourself instead with lazy, tone-deaf attempts at insult? Does it make you cry, and text your girlfriends, if your mom lets you use her phone? Please return to ripping off Justin Bieber files, and leave discussion about things like imports and exports to people who don't think it's, like, so unfair that people don't all want to give away what they produce every day, and some of them actually live on the other side of your national border. It's quite possible, in fact, that your My Little Pony collection was made by someone who lives in another country, but who was still able to get paid for that effort despite the fact that you paid in US dollars at the retail level. Wow! So, like, Eeeeevil! That should, like, totally be stopped, or something, because there shouldn't have to be, like, banks and stuff because it's all so mean and stuff, right?
Grow up or go away. Either would be fine.