I have been in the septic service business with my good friend Bob since 2003 and can
handle whatever septic system problems you may have.

*geek *space

It better be good as BG (2003) or better than prequel spinoff (forgot its name already).

>> ^grinter:

Wow! that was triumphant. Did they air this?


I would have thought so. Clearly Leno was happy to set him up for his jokes though maybe he wasn't expecting the John Kerry one.

4" - So they're supposed to not bother because you've already seen it before? It IS cutting edge, it's still the best screen/OS on the market in terms of colour, ppi and font rendering, you're only using one factor to determine what's the "best". It's also completely a user preference, some of us don't want 5" screens in our pockets, I don't even want the iPhone5 screen, I prefer the old size but market pressure is forcing us all in to these stupid sizes.

resolution - ppi is more important at these sizes, cramming higher resolutions in to screens this small achieves little. If a phone has the ppi to use retina (or xtra-high density for Android) resources for its size, that is all that is required.

nfc - I feel like people want Apple to include this so it actually gets any traction in the real world because right now, the only people who give a shit or even know of it, are Android tech enthusiasts. That's not a problem, I'm glad you like tech but reality is that this is not in anyway an important feature. It'll be in the 5S probably and it'll get popular and then you'll probably hate Apple for copying or something. Or scoff that you've had it for X years except that your phone had no influence to change the retail sector.

LTE - Yes finally and with some good international support.

video calls over network - Yes, never was a lack of capability, it was network enforced to disallow it. It is nice to finally have it natively supported.

Panorama - Yeah I got nothing on this one, I couldn't give a flying fuck but hey, not like I couldn't give you an equally stupid list of features from any manufacture about all their "awesome exclusive" features. It's called marketing, no need to cry over it.

iOS is hardly stale, it is just not what YOU want out of it, it has been faithful to me for many long years and iOS 6 while boring in new features, is the smoothest it has ever run. I don't think it is a crime to like stability in your OS. Also people always like to call the general public stupid but they're really not, my mum doesn't like her iPhone/iPad for no reason, she likes them because they're the first product EVER to understand her needs. It is a common story, you'll hear it time and time again, Apple understands the needs of regular people, not necessarily tech junkies. The regular people market is MUCH bigger, hence Apple dominance, it ain't rocket science.

On a side note, this parody was pretty funny

>> ^spoco2:

Pretty much my thoughts on the iPhone5... a big ol' pile of 'meh'.
Oooh, a 4" display, that's... um... smaller than my hardly cutting edge Galaxy Nexus
Aaah, a lower resolution screen too.
Eeeeeh, no NFC (Not that I particularly care being that I've used it all but once)
Eeerrrr, LTE... finally
Iiieeeee, video calling over the mobile network. Hello there 9 years ago!
Ughghghuhuhuh, Panarama photos... oh, gee... wizzo, sure can't do that on my current phone.
I'm sure it's well built, I'm sure it works well but:
iOS looks REALLY dated and old now, it seriously needs a new look, it feels antiquated.
You're forced to use iTunes, which is a loathsome piece of software
It doesn't stop people climbing over the top of each other to get them, doesn't stop people who have no idea about tech at all thinking that there is none better than the iPhone5. Doesn't stop Apple's continued market dominance.
But still... Such a huge pile of 'meh'.

Pretty much my thoughts on the iPhone5... a big ol' pile of 'meh'.

Oooh, a 4" display, that's... um... smaller than my hardly cutting edge Galaxy Nexus
Aaah, a lower resolution screen too.
Eeeeeh, no NFC (Not that I particularly care being that I've used it all but once)
Eeerrrr, LTE... finally
Iiieeeee, video calling over the mobile network. Hello there 9 years ago!
Ughghghuhuhuh, Panarama photos... oh, gee... wizzo, sure can't do that on my current phone.

I'm sure it's well built, I'm sure it works well but:
* iOS looks REALLY dated and old now, it seriously needs a new look, it feels antiquated.
* You're forced to use iTunes, which is a loathsome piece of software

It doesn't stop people climbing over the top of each other to get them, doesn't stop people who have no idea about tech at all thinking that there is none better than the iPhone5. Doesn't stop Apple's continued market dominance.

But still... Such a huge pile of 'meh'.

So people who can afford to pay a little more might be asked to? Oh no!

It's interesting that it's Dick Morris complaining about taxes since the IRS filed a $1.5 million tax lien against him in 2003, and he owed back taxes to Conneticut as well (but has since paid).

http://a.abcnews.com/Business/PersonalFinance/Story?id=4650368&page=3

>> ^L0cky:

EIGHTEEN

...yes, I know that >> ^Fletch:
"America's Next Top Model" has been on for TWELVE seasons?
Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.



Lol, I had to Wiki this. They are in the 19th season right now (or soon to be; idk), but it's only been on since 2003. I'm old, so I guess "seasons" still mostly means "years" to me (and then "Moonlighting" threw that all out the window).

I noticed the same thing at my job in 2004. I was laid off in 2003 and when I came back a year later everyone was saying "going forward" or "moving forward" instead of "from now on" or "in the future". I wondered if everyone had gone to a team-building exercise while I was away, where they were taught to use more "positive" expressions. I still say "from now on".

Bwah ha ha! >> ^Issykitty:

Tenth vote, BITCH!

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

>> ^lantern53:

Hasn't the IRS had 10 years to look at Romney's tax return from 2002? And nine yrs to look at his return from 2003, and eight years to look at his return from 2004, etc?
If the IRS has no problem with them, why should anyone else?
Has Obama released his tax forms from 10 yrs ago?
Obama hasn't even released his college transcripts, admission papers, thesis paper, his Illinois state senate schedule, his medical records, and on and on. All these things are sealed. As is our fate if he is re-elected.


The IRS doesn't "look" at returns and analyze them. There are too many. They only respond to certain red flags and that's it. And they don't "look" at them because they're political candidates as that would be unethical not to mention illegal to just start looking through a return for shits and grins and to dig up dirt.

In all likelyhood, everything Romney is doing is technically legal, just crammed full of loopholes and dirty tricks. It probably wouldn't be bad per him per se, it would just highlight the extent the super-wealthy exploit the tax codes.

I don't think you understand how much corporate influence has over the gov't

I work IT in state revenue and while I'm not privy to details, I've talked to enough of the attorneys to know that some of the bigger companies will come in and argue essentially that they don't feel they owe that much tax. no facts, no figures, no calculations. simply "we feel our tax is too high" And deals get made...they get made all the time.

We supposedly live in a land of laws, but those laws get dodged and skirted and bent all the time and its usually the wealthy that get to do it.

Hasn't the IRS had 10 years to look at Romney's tax return from 2002? And nine yrs to look at his return from 2003, and eight years to look at his return from 2004, etc?

If the IRS has no problem with them, why should anyone else?

Has Obama released his tax forms from 10 yrs ago?

Obama hasn't even released his college transcripts, admission papers, thesis paper, his Illinois state senate schedule, his medical records, and on and on. All these things are sealed. As is our fate if he is re-elected.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

Funny when Bush was in office you piled everything on him. Every thing was his fault, everything. Never mind that Dodd and Frank were in charge of the housing.
In 2001, President George Bush raised concerns in his 2002 budget request, saying “Fannie and Freddie are potential problems.” In his 2003 budget, Bush’s warnings were upgraded to “systemic risk that could spread beyond the housing sector”, and he pushed Congress to establish a “strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie”. Bush’s legislation was blocked by Dodd, Schumer, and Obama in the Senate, . Over in the House, Barney Frank stated that Fan and Fred were financially sound. Yea the collapse was Bush and the republican fault.

You right. The president is only 1 of the 3 branches. WE need to get rid of every Democrat in the house and senate also. Thanks for the reminder.

Thank GOD I'm not dumb enough to vote Democrat.

>> ^charliem:

Last I checked, the president has no power to create or change existing law....only to veto ones that get passed by the senate and house.
And how the hell are the democrats going to illicit change when you have such an obstructionist non-functional opposition opposing every single thing that goes out on the floor just the for sake of opposing it?
None of the stagnation is the presidents fault....the president is actually one of the least important figures in illiciting any real change.
If you want change, get out and fucking vote for a decent rep / senator.
IF you didnt vote....then shut up and live with it.

This came out on the 12th, it's been days.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-12/politics/32633322_1_bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure

"But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'

"Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings."

And the source of this info, from the same article.

"Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time."

I don't know about you, but sole stockholder, chairman of the board, president and CEO with 100% ownership and control sounds to me like he might have had something to do with it. Even if he was in a coma he had legal ownership and responsibility for it. The "I wasn't there" argument is a bit thin, and if he gave different info at different times between FEC and SEC filings he may have committed a crime.