Chase is only doing good because they havent been caught yet... and they ended the no-min balance free checking WAMU had in place. Same with Bank of America.

I seriously had bank of america drain my $25.00 account I opened in 2008, telling me they charged a fee one year after the account was opened. Only they decided four months ago. When I went to the bank, they said if I didnt pay another $25.00 in overdraft because they were charging me because they already took my cash, I would be sent to collections. So bank of america stole $50 dollars directly from me, not to mention all the other money they must steal. Run out? Print more, steal more. Buy goods and services and real estate that can't be refunded or liquidated, rinse, repeat.

Fucking assholes.

There was no help for me. I can afford the loss, I'm too smart to know nothing will ever happen to get my money back, and im too dumb to keep track of my money so i put it in a bank and they stole it. I really am not too good at life.


Maybe in the end, there can be only one. And then we can all stfu or gtfo! it would be easier than pretending there was a solution.


ps I'm a white male aged 18-34 with a high 700's credit score and no outstanding debts... i had money to spare... but that doesn't mean the bank can steal it... i could have used it for something too, and it was mine. wahhhhh!!!


geez i sound almost as bad as the corporate babys and other crooks who are sad they can't steal so easily. wahhhh!!! i have to work to live in a country where im not as likely to be raped for an AIDS cure or/and beheaded for my religion!!! communism!!! black people!!!

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."

Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable


As a public employee, I can assure you that no one I've ever worked alongside with or even met on the job thinks that our bosses want anything other than to make us work as hard as possible for the least amount of money possible. Not to mention the fact that, ultimately, our bosses are our citizens, and they've never wanted anything else either, especially in the current climate where attacking unions and blaming all of society's problems on them is the most popular thing to do for any elected official.

My co-conspirator bosses here in Oregon are now charging me $45 per month until I can get my waist down to 34 inches (regardless of my height). That's for the health insurance that costs me $900 per month already. And here I had spend a year trying to convince them to let me stand while I work.

If we didn't have the ability to threaten a strike this year, I'd be making 25% less wages as well, starting in January.

My favorite part of your post is that you're quoting Coulter in a time when literally every politician, including my Democratic governor, is sanctioning attacks on public employee unions across the board.

Wait, they weren't Nirvana!? Fucking scalper charged me $400 for that ticket D:

>> ^Yogi:

Today I got a letter from my Union Bank that they were going to start charging me $2 everytime I use an ATM.


Like, period? Even their own?

If so, O-U-C-H

Today I got a letter from my Union Bank that they were going to start charging me $2 everytime I use an ATM.

Now I realized that you all had this conversation before I got here, but I would like to answer this question:
>> ^blankfist:

Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor?

You stole it. That's all I need. What you have in your hand is not the result of your labor only, but disproportionately a result of the all of the infrastructure of government which allows you to do what you do efficiently.

We have decided, through our government, to socialize those things which we have found to be inefficient to keep in private hands. Every road is not a toll road, the police do not protect people on a fee-per-call basis, the military does not protect our borders selectively, we all benefit, and we all pay when we make money, because, in reality, those who make the most take the most from the commons.

I'm a computer geek. Everything I work with on a daily basis is dependent on technology created with money from the DOE or DARPA, they don't charge me for this common technology, but it makes my field possible, and it makes what we do orders of magnitude more powerful and profitable.

Don't think your exempt, every business that you depend on, every service and product that you buy is cheaper and more plentiful because of our socialized roads, legal systems, DARPA funded tracking technology etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you WANT not to be the recipient of this socialized charity does not make it so, you have taken something that you did not earn. Don't whine when we expect you to give it back.

>> ^blankfist:

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Some of it is, lots of it is not, at the moment nobody in a position to act on the issue seems at all interested in pushing hard to remove the bad programs, only the good. I'll not champion the destruction of good programs in the name of some arbitrary context free judgement that taxes are bad.

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

Well, calling me a dipshit is probably unnecessary, though I'm more than fine with it. As always. I'm not going to summon dag here like some other Sifters.

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.

By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?

It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

^ It's done by contract. If Delta was wrong, the soldiers will be reimbursed.

In that situation it's much easier to just pay the fee and deal with it later than risk missing the flight trying to fix it immediately.

I'd be pissed if I thought Delta was charging me more than the contracted amount, but I disagree with painting the entire airline as anti-soldier based on one situation before they've even contacted the airline management about it.

lol!! wow this is truly classic.

Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.

Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

Isaiah 45
1 “This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
2 I will go before you
and will level the mountains[a];
I will break down gates of bronze
and cut through bars of iron.
3 I will give you hidden treasures,
riches stored in secret places,
so that you may know that I am the LORD,
the God of Israel, who summons you by name

Ezra 1
The Proclamation of Cyrus
1(A) In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia,(B) that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so(C) that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:
2"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and(D) he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—(E) he is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem."

5Then rose up the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites,(F) everyone whose spirit(G) God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the LORD that is in Jerusalem. 6And all who were about them(H) aided them with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, with beasts, and with costly wares, besides all that was freely offered. 7(I) Cyrus the king also brought out the vessels of the house of the LORD that(J) Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his gods. 8Cyrus king of Persia brought these out in the charge of(K) Mithredath the treasurer, who counted them out to(L) Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah. 9And this was the number of them:(M) 30 basins of gold, 1,000 basins of silver, 29 censers, 1030 bowls of gold, 410 bowls of silver, and 1,000 other vessels; 11all the vessels of gold and of silver were 5,400. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when the exiles were brought up from Babylonia to Jerusalem.

So lets get this straight..to dispute me you are providing evidence which is biblical, from the very same God that I am saying is responsible for it. You're technically correct, this was outside the Christian west. I reeeeaally don't think it helps your case though. Apparently the bible is sufficient evidence for you now, so now please let me urge you to turn away from your sins and give your life to Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, who takes away the sins of the world and gives men eternal life. I know its hard to admit when you're wrong, but now I would say the evidence is overwhelming.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Christians are the reason we abolished slavery. There has never been an abolitionist movement anywhere besides in the Christian west.

Your first sentence is false, non-Christian humans have been abolishing slavery for millennia, see here.
You, of course then back peddle by talking about a "movement". I'll counter that the only reason that a movement was necessary in the US was because Christians so bitterly opposed abolition that a great amount of political force (and a massive war) had to brought to bare against them. Civilized societies, on the other hand, seem to dispense with it much more easily.

This is idiotic. Black bears kill about as many people as Grizzly bears(1). Obviously that's partly a product of them being much more common, but still -- they are undeniably dangerous. The actions of this woman might be 99% safe, but that's not good enough considering how often black bears and humans run in to each other. I would definitely defend myself if a black bear charged me -- there's a non-trivial chance that bear has selected me for his dinner menu.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

"Brown" makes me frown.

I fucking hate UPS. Make me drive all the way to the airport to pick up a package and charge me $60 in brokerage! Suck it UPS!

@gwiz665 i think you've completely missed the point with the "get on their knees" nonsense. It was plucked straight out of the comment that started the whole thing. It was someone else's rediculous metaphor turned around and half your post is trying to take that apart. I didn't think it needed an addendum, i had hoped it was obvious.

As for the first half, i'd just like to mention that sales figures in today's world are always going to be weighted due to the proliferation of PCs and the HUGE boom in internet access across the whole world. A million subscribers in, say, 1999 is 10 million less than in 2009, but it's a bit like saying black and white tv's were rubbish because colour tv's outsold them 10:1 - the factors that affect the sales figures have exponentially increased in the time period - it's not just the proliferation of PC's (which is huge in itself), but the speed of internet connections, the accessibility of the internet, the medium through which the game can be released, advertisements (which increase as other media popularity increases - more tvs = more people seeing adverts, etc.) - i won't continue, you can imagine for yourself.

I think the reason wow has blown all other mmo's out of the water is that, at the time, there was no competition - the market and timing was perfect for (at minimum) a playable mmo with acceptable graphics and wow was there. It was made with a decent level of competency and released with few bugs. It pandered to people's immediate wants from the game (ie. i want loot right this instant) and diluted the feeling of achievement by doing so. I never said wow wasn't very skillfully made - the methods it uses to keep people playing are brilliant. However i subscribe to the view that people don't know what is best for them, and getting their desires in the short term turned out to make a less fulfilling long term.

And finally, i've been to the hardest hardest parts of wow, and even the most disgustingly difficult parts of it are only as tricky as some of the moderate encounters in (hate to use this as an example again, but it's really the only one i have) everquest. I would even go further as to say that a HUGE part of the difficulty in wow lies around random numbers - sometimes you will get hit for a huge amount, or 2 abilities will trigger at the same time, or 2 aoe effects land in the same spot, or 2 of your priests/whatever are targetted with an ability, etc. Those are my experiences with wow, and i was at the forefront of freshly released content up until the one after they recycled naxxramas and charged me for it. And every time we ploughed through the content, i'd cancel my account again and go back into hibernation.

Anyhow. If your only point is "vote with your wallet", i think you can skip that. As i've said - i did, but i see no harm in mentioning what i prefer in an mmo as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As a kid a dog charged me on a bike once.. stupid thing wanted to joust me. I complied. I sped up (going downhill), aimed, and kicked it once dead center square on it's chest below the head. It flew in the air, flipped a few times and landed on it's back. The bastard never chased me again. Ah.. good memories.

I like dog's by the way. Just not asshole dogs.