>> ^Porksandwich:

I guess my issue with telling people they should try everything in life is that there is the potential for people do so with no other reason than because someone told them they should or they are "missing out". I agree it's their choice to do so, but it's going to happen in an irresponsible way when anything they try is illegal, unsafe, or socially unaccepted whether it be drug or activity.
In my opinion it's why we end up with a lot of adults who are unable to cope with life sober, they get into "something" in their teens and learn to function in society while going on their highs and lows along with all the stuff everyone else has to learn to cope with. They just simply never learn to balance themselves. Now if we tell people who've got a relatively stable life with the ability to put things in perspective, they COULD experiment with drugs or other activities.....presumably they would have people who could tell them they are fucking their life up over a powder, pill, or plant.
My experience so far with older adults who smoke weed and don't really hide it is that they can deal with it, they do it in the privacy of their own home and they don't spend their time trying to talk people into joining them or convincing others. However if their kids start using, they usually start early and in secret and I haven't met one yet that didn't constantly talk about smoking: when they last did, when they will next do it, how much, how you should join them, how one kind strain is better, etc, etc. They may not abuse it, but they sure sound like they would if they could keep enough money in their pockets to do so.
So.......as long as it's "for the experience of it" very infrequently and not because they never learned to function without it. Personally I don't drink, smoke, use drugs, etc....and I don't really care if other people do (well except for smoking, can't stand when people smoke near me or smell like an ashtray) but you never know when people are moderate and balanced in their usage of most things.
I mean honestly unless a kid has someone older showing them quantities and how to cope......it's basically like encouraging them to skydive when they can't afford the equipment and training to actually walk away unharmed. People are pretty fucking stupid when they want to "be cool" and fit in.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^mxxcon:
i guess after smoking that shit every time they kept finding their windows broken and couldn't figure out how it happened so they decided to record their "Adventures"
On a serious note, they are fucking idiots for taking these drugs
and equally fucking idiots for posting it on the internet.
This is as good EIA as
any.

I'm sorry, but i have to take this up. You are not necessarily an idiot for trying a drug. It's all a matter of opinion, but mine is that you're pretty closeted if you don't ever try a drug - or rather if you pour scorn on someone and label them as an idiot for trying one. If you don't want to try them, fine. You've got say 85 years on this earth, give or take, and i recommend you try and find any kind of meaning, experience everything you can, try everything before you're asked to leave because what the hell is the point in being alive if you don't do anything? We didn't get to be the top of the food chain by not experimenting with stuff.
This guy approached a drug which plays with what you percieve as reality. He went about it in a stupid way. He is not stupid for trying the drug.
I ask only one thing of people in relation to their opinions on drugs - express your desire not to take them, express your reasons why you don't want to take them, but for goodness sake don't judge something you haven't tried.



But that's all good man - you expressed your desire not to try it, you've expressed why, but you didn't judge any drug which you haven't tried.

Counter to your experience, i knew a guy who started smoking weed at 14, 15 ish. His mum told him - fine, do it in the house where i can make sure you're ok. So he did with his close friends, and they had a great time, were grateful for the ability to do it in a warm comfortable place, and were delivered muffins and cakes from time to time because his mum was a great cook and gave her a chance to make sure everything was fine. They didn't talk about it all the time, they didn't overdo it, and he's a fireman now. Oh, and we eventually found out that his mum smoked it too. Their house was great, a proper home, proper family.

I suffered hard with depression in the past, and if i hadn't tried weed when i was 17, perhaps i might not be around today, you know? It took the horrible bottomless pit away from under me and showed me that perhaps life isn't all misery, it was no permanent cure but it showed me that i didn't always have to feel down. And that didn't lead to further use, because it was enough to feel good for the rest of the day, my one good day in a thousand bad ones.

I think we simply disagree philosophically, or something. I think people should - within the realms of reason - try things for the hell of it. I don't think drugs are irresponsible merely by dint of being illegal. I think people should question what the government tells us we can put in our bodies. Because i think if people did put some weed in their bodies regularly, they might just realise how supercilious we are when we take material wealth and work to be of utmost important to us. That might be dangerous for the government, because people might decide not to spend the majority if their lives doing something they despise, and actually start reaching out, trying for something better - taking a chance.

Remember, it's all very easy for someone to tell you the bad sides of things, because they're much publicised and fear mongering is a cinch. Governments want bad drug rumours to be spread, and they like bad emotional baggage to be attached to the word "drugs". Numerous propaganda attempts in the past surely show us that they've got some agenda. And it'd be very easy for people to say "LOL, if people stopped 'doing what they despise', the world would collapse and we'd have no food, no electricity, etc. etc!" But it ain't necessarily so. People do it already. There's alternatives, in my opinion better alternatives, but for a world like that we might all NEED to reach the higher level of relaxedness associated with weed

And finally - how's amsterdam doing? Because last i heard it's a fking great place to live. Better than where i live even if it's half as good as the last time i heard, and we prohibit drugs.

>> ^burdturgler:

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

Detection by who? Neighbors? Easy, wear your gear, break down the door. If someone asks what's going on, say "got a report about someone smelling smoke." Stuff the baggy uniform with whatever you like, then walk out and say "false alarm."

>> ^burdturgler:
You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot.

Umm, I'm sure guns and ammo have been stolen from cops, but I doubt it's the leading source of guns used to commit crimes. Besides this is sorta my point, all the precautions in the world won't guarantee you won't get robbed. Even the police get robbed.

You could just as easily wind up burned alive in your house because it took the fire fighters too long to bash down your door. That seems worse than the infinitesimally small added risk that you might get robbed because there was a fire lockbox outside.

>> ^burdturgler:
Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors".

Well, sure, you have the right to give a key to whoever you like. But the thing is, the fire department is legally allowed to enter your home without your permission now, solely on the basis of their own judgement about whether it's warranted or not.

Giving them a key isn't some big change in terms of the limits on your rights to control access to your residence, the legal authorization for the fire department to do their job without your express consent was.

For some reason you're comfortable with them having the legal authority to damage your property and enter your home at will, but not for them to enter your home at will without the property damage.

>> ^burdturgler:
Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.
Maybe that's just cable "news" though.


Yeah, that's more of a cable news thing. The real wealth of banks is really, really hard to steal these days because it's not kept in cash or in some vault. Bank branches don't really have much of value in them at all.

I mean think about it, do you really think there are physical paper bills for all the dollars in every account everywhere in the world? For even 10%?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief
Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.
Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.
>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?
The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.
Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.
Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.
Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.
Kinda scary!


I was taught by Yoda (schmawy) to never let an argument from one post bleed into another.

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot. Nothing helps much after the crime is committed.

Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors". Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.

Maybe that's just cable "news" though (sorry schmawy)

>> ^burdturgler:

BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief

Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.

Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.

>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.


Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?

The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.

Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.

Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.

Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.

Kinda scary!

Keys kept in a safe you say? Brilliant! We should call it a .. "lockbox"!

I like you Netrunner. You're a real fighter. BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief.

"have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.

Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.

All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

That fire did not want to go out! That aside, I am pretty sure everyone on deck is trained and prepared for this on every single landing. The deck of a ship is not the best place for an out of control fire. Also the place is small, a general fire alarm with emergency crews to deck pretty much nets you a tidy fireman force in seconds. I kinda wonder why the fire truck stopped, it shoulda kept going along the side and blasted that huge sucker up the hind end of the plane and not sit there washing the windows. Trust me, if that thing blows, you arnt saving the pilot from where you are now.

Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

Remember this video with Councilman Bernard Parks banning fast food in South LA? Well, according to this article from LA Times (you know how right wing they can be), Parks makes $178,789 a year plus "$22,000 a month in city retirement benefits". Plus a police pension of $265,050 being the highest paid police chief in US history. But that's just one councilman and retired police chief in LA.

The entire Los Angeles general fund budget is $6.7billion, and they're projecting a deficit. The police budget's over 1 billion. And check this article out:

Los Angeles could face nearly a $1-billion shortfall by 2010 because of a mammoth bailout needed for the city's employee pension funds, which have seen investments tank in the spiraling national recession, according to a city budget report released Friday.

Sure, they're cutting some jobs, but look at all the new spending and hiring they're doing. On the news right now they're reporting about LA City Council voting to fund a $1.2 billion-development project to build a luxury hotel. And what about the high speed railsystem from San Diego to San Fran? The point is, LA and California spend a lot of money, so why is the $12,000 monthly salary for a fireman too big for you to swallow? Usually there's nothing too big for you to swallow.

Hell, a quick google search could've easily proven my "apocryphal firefighter" is in fact not so questionable. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. How are they able to earn so much? Is it because the number of fires magically leapt to historical highs over the last couple of years? Well, according to the article, that sounds unlikely:

Recruits earn overtime for after-hours remedial training "if they feel the need for more time to grasp the skills," a department spokeswoman said.

So, do you now still call bullshit on me, my CPA, and your mom the two of us were fucking when we told each other that story? Or does it seem possible (nay probable!) that maybe the city workers in unions here in LA (and all over California for that matter) are making a very good (and at times great) salary on our tax dollars?

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just expressing skepticism since it doesn't line up with either my personal experience, nor with objective analyses of the changes in tax law from 2009 to 2010. Since you don't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about why your taxes might be higher, there's not really any way for us to get to the bottom of the discrepancy in our viewpoints.

I can't say the same about your secondhand hearsay about a supposed fireman who's making six figures. I call bullshit on you, your CPA, and the pig the two of you were fucking when you told each other that story. It's either a total fabrication, or the guy's primary source of income has nothing to do with firefighting.

As for Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK, they're not in the same boat as the US. They're all engaged in much sterner deficit-reduction policy than the US has adopted or is likely to adopt in the near future. And to answer the question I posed to you, the net result is that they're just making things worse. What on paper should have reduced the budget didn't since it depressed the economy so much, and as a result they're no better off in terms of government debt, and much worse off when it comes to their general economies. Countries who took the liberal path like Canada and Sweeden are in pretty good shape. The US is pretty much splitting the difference, and while we're not getting worse anymore, we're not really recovering either.

I kinda feel sorry for you if you really think taxes are the only thing standing between you and a happy, satisfying life. A 35% raise wouldn't give that to me, nor would even a 350% raise. It'd be nice to have to be sure, but I feel like I've passed the point where even large increases in my income would have a qualitative impact on my overall quality of life. I don't really make all that much in the grand scheme of things either -- far less than your apocryphal firefighter.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don't care about wars, or humanitarian crises that happen to other people, just about how much taxes you have to pay and whether people you know make fun of you or not. Most people who feel that way don't have the guts to come right out and say so.

Just a word of advice, but money isn't everything. It can feel like it if you're not able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, or pay your medical bills, but beyond that happiness and satisfaction has a lot more to do with your emotional needs and the relationships you have with the people in your life than much of anything else.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

Well, I'm certainly not lying. And it was 35% on my adjusted income, or what they call taxable income, I think. And it was in no way over or even in the same ballpark as $373k. Not even close.

I don't own. I rent. It is LA, after all. Buying a home in the city is tough. But I shouldn't be penalized for that, should I? We didn't get married last year, but we're certainly doing it this year. That may help next year, but why punish people who are single? Does that seem fair to you? And why punish those who don't want to work in the public sector or for a corporation? You know, I did employ two freelancers, so I create jobs this year. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that? It just makes zero sense to me.

I don't know why my tax is so high, to be honest. I have a CPA that deals with all of that. I just give him my itemized deductions and the amount I made, and he does the rest.

Yes, Ireland, Greece, Spain and the UK are exactly the same as the US. Bravo. Their EU is part of their problem, but that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it? I like how you bipartisan types take someone's real problems and make a political statement out of them. You know, taxation of this magnitude is not a partisan issue. This affects real people with real lives. Right now in my life, the only thing that stands in the way of me building a better life and the ability for me to pursue my happiness is the government. I owe them every year, and every year it goes up, and every year the Democrats call me a liar. I don't understand that.

Meanwhile, my CPA tells me of some of his clients. The firemen and policemen in LA. One fireman, a captain for a firehouse, makes $12,000 a month, and he'll retire when he's 55, and he'll take home 90% of that for the rest of his life. Good for him. A police captain makes enough to buy a home in Malibu overlooking the water. According to my CPA, he's got one helluva beautiful manicured backyard, too. Good for him. Glad I can pay for it. And you wonder why some of us hate public unions. Because I have to pay for them to retire at the age of 55 and take home a pension for the rest of their lives, yet the small businessmen can't catch a break because we're just middle class. I hear it's a helluva lot easier to just get on welfare and ride that out for a while.

So, you can comeback all you want with "Spain! UK! Greece!" but it means little to people like me, because I don't give a damn about your partisan bullshit, and it's not worth my effort to sit here and point out the many flaws in that argument. I care about how this affects me. The wars, the world affairs, the humanitarian efforts, and whatever else to me is just a distraction. What's important is I shouldn't be raked over the coals, and then have a gaggle of confused statists scratching their heads and point fingers at me as if there was some taxation glitch in the system.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
All I can say is I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe you could send me your tax return, and I could figure out what the deal was!

But something's definitely fishy about that, because the top marginal income tax rate is 35%, which means you only get taxed at 35% on income above $373,651, and that's adjusted income, as in after you do all your deductions.

I'd have to whip out a calculator to check what overall % of my income it was when I was all said and done, but mine was more like 12%. Then again I'm pretty much doing most of the normal middle-class stuff that's subsidized (i.e. married, own a home, work for a corporation that provides health insurance, etc.). Only thing missing is the 2.5 kids, and a cache of semi-automatic weapons.

Anyways, here's Turbo Tax's summary of the tax changes for 2010, you tell me what it was that bit you.

As for cutting spending when times are tough, how's that working for Ireland? Greece? Spain? UK? Is it working for them, or are they in even worse shape than they were before they started? How are countries like Sweeden and Canada that did big stimulus (relative to their GDP anyways), currency devaluation and strict bank regulation doing?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, my federal income tax went up to 35%. I made significantly less this year, as well. The difference between people like you and people like me, is that I'm freelance and considered to be a small business while you're an employee working for a corporation. My taxes went up. Yours probably went down.

That's the government incentivizing you to work for a corporation or the government.

Taxes aren't the only incentive for working for government and corporations. They have lower taxes to pay, so they can generally pay more and offer great benefits, as well. Freelancers like me cannot afford health or dental insurance. I could if they weren't stealing 35% of my income. Luckily for me, my fiancée works for a corporation so I'm a dependent on her policy.

Also, because I made less this year (thanks to the economy), I have to look at cutting my spending. Logical, right? So I have done so. But my 2010 expenses for doing business haven't gone down, and the cost of living has skyrocketed (especially here in LA). Agriculture is up. Gas is up. My utilities went up. And brilliantly my state and federal taxes have gone up. But really it's the federal income tax that's abhorrent.

Why is it the government can't cut its spending when times are tough? Why do they have to squeeze us during rough times? Why can't they see we're hurting and help us by taking a little less? Maybe if we didn't have to pay for all this defense spending? Maybe if Obama didn't go into Libya? Maybe we can get rid of some of these government departments? I mean, something? Anything?

There's never an answer for this except "pay your fair share". I wish I was paying my fair share, but 35% on top of a financial loss this year isn't fair. And didn't they report that we, the people, paid more in taxes this year than the corporations? Shocker.

So, NR, my taxes did in fact go up. They went way the hell up with everything else... except my income. Where's my reprieve? Where's Obama when the small businesses need him?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

Ummm...I was referring to this: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TL;DR
>> ^kceaton1:

Terse/Deal.
Submit->OK.
>> ^doogle:
Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Terse/Deal.

Submit->OK.

>> ^doogle:

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.

>> ^kceaton1:

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).

Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.

If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).

This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.

BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).

Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.

What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...

/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

It's a euphemism for putting a beard on her Santa.

Spill milk on her back

Spooge Pris in the face.

Foam up her fireman.


I think my imagery is getting away from me...

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^gwiz665:
I'd put smoke up her chimney... if you know what I mean.

Please explain.


>> ^Sagemind:

Ya, We're not quite sure we know what you mean... Could you elaborate... ?

Take yourself serious a bit much?

I'm sorry its not a movie about the down trodden person overcoming obstacles and achieving his/her goal
or the close to washed up athlete/musician/politician/cop/fireman/actor/Executive/etc. turning his life around
or the larger than life hero who must quest across 1/2/3 movies to defeat evil and save the universe
or a mystery with a big twist in the middle that suprises you with the person that is trusted most revealed as the villain....and then another twist to make the protagonist a bit more human/gritty/heroic/lovable/not-so-heroic
or a story that is not big and grand but real and full of the art that runs through all of "real" life.
or ....

instead it SEEMS to be a movie that doesn't take itself overly serious (lesson to be learned?) and just tries to have fun with comedy, over the top action scenes, parody of early action shows/comics, and a storyline that is soo outside of reality that you'd think people could put their pretentious expectations for movies aside and just enjoy them-self.

Oh and i hadn't even heard of this movie before i watched this clip, so I'm not exactly a fanboy, but after reading your comment I felt compelled to comment.


>> ^shuac:

Oh goodie. Another I'm-just-a-regular-guy superhero movie based on coloring books. Someone pinch me.