Well, the mood is just fine in it. But the scratches, clicks and pops make me crazy. I'm too OCD for that!
>> ^notarobot:

Aww.. I kinda liked the mood of the music. What would you suggest?
>> ^gwiz665:
The music fucking kills it. Couldn't they have taken the 2 minutes and removed all the clicks and pops?
The music is fine in itself, but it just seems shitty with the lousy noise.

Aww.. I kinda liked the mood of the music. What would you suggest?
>> ^gwiz665:

The music fucking kills it. Couldn't they have taken the 2 minutes and removed all the clicks and pops?
The music is fine in itself, but it just seems shitty with the lousy noise.

The music fucking kills it. Couldn't they have taken the 2 minutes and removed all the clicks and pops?

The music is fine in itself, but it just seems shitty with the lousy noise.

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history

Pht - not to put too fine a point on it - but the LESS PRODUCTIVE government is, the better off the American people are. Clinton got saddled with a GOP congress in 1992 that put the brakes on his agenda. And America BENEFITED. President Reagan and Bush1 had Democrat congresses to put the brakes on them. And America BENEFITED.

Who are the two worst presidents in American history. Bush2 and Barak Obama. Why? Because under both of them government spending has skyrocketed, fiscal policy has deteriorated, and government has increased in size, scope, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. And what is the common thread to both of these presidents? The Congress was the SAME PARTY as the President, and thier administrations were "highly productive" (in the sense that they passed a ton of legislation).

So you guys should be praising the Tea Party for slamming the brakes on a lousy government, because when thin-skinned, tin-plated self-deluded dictator-wannabes like Obama take office we NEED a 'do nothing' Congress shutting them down. Problem with Obama is he is such a crazy dictator that he just keeps doing what he wants with czars and cabinets. In a sane world, every American would demand he be thrown out of office, pilloried in town square, and then run out of town on a rail to be dumped in Cuba, or Venezuala, Iran, or some other communist dictatorship where he could feel more at home.

These ***holes won't even debate an unbelievably important ... jobs bill,"

Good, because it isn't important. It's a disaster. And you are allowed to whine about the GOP 'not debating it' only after it makes it out of the SENATE, which is controlled by the Democrats. The fact that even the Democrats can't stand this loser piece of crap should tell you a lot about how awful it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

id made a shooter with an awesome engine, but lousy gameplay and story? Shocking.


The story is lousy to be sure. But the gameplay is absolutely fantastic. (if a little scatter brained). The gunplay in particular is extremely well done and very fun. I haven't had as much fun in a shooter since F.E.A.R. 1.. and before that Half Life. The gunplay is really tight, fast action, the guns are fun, and the enemies have great AI and the animation system is second to none.

Sure the story is a bit offhandish, and the game finishes oddly. But I got 20 hours out of it the single player game which is actually rather good compared to most shooters today where 4-6 hours is the standard.

>> ^NetRunner:

id made a shooter with an awesome engine, but lousy gameplay and story? Shocking.


Hehe... ya. They should just just rename themselves "id game engines and real time rendering technology, inc."

id made a shooter with an awesome engine, but lousy gameplay and story? Shocking.

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

Obama's "plans" (when he has them) are so awful, so incompetent, and so ill-designed that even the Democrats won't vote for them. Obama's so-called 'Job Bill' (really a tax bill) went up for a vote in the Senate last week. The Democrats still control the Senate. So - there was nothing stopping Obama's tax bill from passing the Senate because there was no way the GOP could 'obstruct' it. Awwww - guess what happened? The DEMOCRATS voted against it and it went down in flames because it is just a bunch of stupid ideas he has had fried into his brain between crack hits in college.

And leave us not forget - the Democrats had control of the House for the first 3 years of Obama's presidence, as well as a super-majority of the Senate. GOP 'obstructionism' when they don't control any branch of government? Aside from piddling proceedural delays, the GOP couldn't do squat for almost 30 months. But their agenda was so lousy that even with that majority they were having difficulty not because of the GOP, but because even Democrats couldn't agree with the awful ideas being rammed out by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

And as far as the OWS dummies go... You think Obama sees them as anything except useful idiots he can exploit? Most of the things the OWS dislikes were done by Obama and his cronies. Bailouts? Obama. Crony capitalism? Obama. Shielding corporate interests? Obama. Pushing costs onto customer instead of companies? Obama.

Implying that Obama would be able to 'fix everything' if only you get wid of those wascally Wepubwicans is absolute balderdash. The entire political class is to blame - not the GOP as if it was the only party that was corrupt. The way to 'fix' this is to elect Tea Party candidates like Perry or Ron Paul who want to gut government like a sea bass. Cut government down and you remove the ability of companies to 'crony' up to anyone. We don't need a 3 trillion dollar government to fix this. We just need simple, common-sense rules that are ENFORCED and not filled with loopholes that get re-written every election depending on who is in office.

There is no GOP obstructionism. That is a prog-lib myth.

Wealth disparity is a red herring. It is one economic indicator out of literally thousands. Neolibs like to harp on it, but when the poorest schlub in the US has 2 cars, 2 flat screens, air conditioning, and more food than they can possibly eat then it holds very little meaning. I'm a statistician, and there is always a curve in wealth with extreme ends. Deal with it.

Again - they're focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is a corrupt and powerful government. Lobbyists push for bad laws, but bad laws can't get passed without corrupt legislators. In the past, the robber-barons just did what they wanted and government was too toothless and feckless to stop abuses. Today the robber-barons are back, but they are aided and abetted by a powerful, corrupt government that creates a maze of loopholes, exemptions, and laws to pick and choose which company gets to be the one to get away with murder.

The first thing that has to happen is that government needs to be reduced in size and power so that they cannot be the kingmakers. Then you pass a set of simple reforms that are clear and basic so everyone knows 'the rules'. Companies get away with crap because government passes laws that allows it (like the repeal of Glass/Steagall). Peel the lobbyists out of such a system, and all you do it create an all-powerful government that crushes (or blesses) specific industries according to its whimsy.

For example - Obama has been literally shovelling cash at the 'green' industry. Solyndra (and others) have shown that it was all a subsidy-scam. There was no possible way these solar companies could possibly turn a profit. Not to mention ethanol subsidies, et al... They all lobbied big time and got a pile of political payola. It is modern day patronage. Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to slap down oil and coal. The government is picking some industries to grow, and others to punish. That is totally bogus. And (just so you neolibs don't get mad) it is bogus when it happens to companies like Exxon or Haliburton too.

The government should not be this power broker that picks and chooses which industries get favoritism, and which ones get the thumbscrews based on the political preference of the legislators in power. That creates an unpredictable, uncertain, arbitrary system where industry is more beholden to politicians than the public. Who cares if a company makes a lousy or unprofitable product when they can just pay a lobbyist, or donate to a candidate, and end up getting piles and piles of taxpayer cash?

THAT is the real problem here. Wall Street, Solydra, Enron - all these companies are just symptoms. The disease is the government.

1) i'd like to know what unskilled labor jobs the government pays 100k/yr

I'm happy to expand your mind.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Keep in mind that the bulk of these jobs are make-work jobs and bureaucrats who serve no function except to warm a chair and internacinely war for budget share of the federal pie. There's tons more. Teacher union administrators, the construction worker supervisor who stands around 90% of the day, and on and on and on. Even a cursory google search will bag you thousands on thousands of federal and state employees that are unskilled, overpaid leeches on the economy.

2) the solvency of pensions/health care is quite well documented

Supply the data proving that. The Postal Service is due to collapse in November because it can't pay its operating costs AND keep up the retirement benefits of its retirees. Social Security isn't solvent. Medicare isn't solvent. Medicaid isn't solvent. The benefit programs of federal employees is banked entirely on debt spending. "Solvency" is when the program is in the black.

i know you've been led to believe that only private business could figure out a way to make it work, but who instituted these services in the first place?

Private companies. Long before 'government' ever came along, private individuals performed these tasks for money or goods. Government apes private companies - not the other way around. And 99 times out of 100, government does a lousy job at them because they don't operate logically. Case in point...

the education thing just BLOWS my mind

Yes - I have no difficulty believing that a person steeped in leftist theory would have a hard time understanding the concept that education can take place quite easily and well without government subsidies. The best colleges are private, and people who go to private shools (or are homeschooled) do just as well (or better) than students in public schools. And our public schools do such a good job, don't they? Regardless, I don't have a problem with government providing a "School". I have a problem with government meddling in cirriculum, and the associated teacher's union. Have the government provide the 'school', and then get out of the way.

its CLASS WARFARE when the victim speaks up and demands justice

First - there's no victim here. Second, it is class warfare when pinheads like Obama and his supporters talk out both sides of their mouths, lie, and deceive on this issue. Buffet didn't pay 'less than his secretary' on his income - he paid MORE - but he and Obama are lying and equating capital gains as income as a means to raise taxes NOT on "millionaires", but on the middle class. THAT is class warfare.

"Bailing out the rich". Pht - what a crock. Obumma is only wanting to bail out government, which has overspent and overpromised and he wants to sock it to the middle class. If he was serious then he's freeze all government spending today to 2011 levels and keep them there until the system was in the black. Then he'd pass a balanced budget ammendment and everyone would praise him as the greatest president ever. But no - he's a leftist idiot and all he wants is to raise taxes in a recession - which even he said was a stupid thing to do. Stupid is as stupid does - and the stupid people that agree with it.

He should have been fired for having lousy aim and not knowing his skills. If every idiot who doesn't know how to shoot straight starts blasting away they'll kill a lot more bystanders than they will bad guys.

>> ^Peroxide:

I did for you, what a short sighted status-quo supporting buffoon.
"These youth should be content to make my big macs for the rest of their lives! Lousy no goodin' disrespectin' authority YOUTHS!"
Yeah, they have NO good reason to be upset... Typical response of the wealthy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/10-7
>> ^ghark:
wow, wish I could downvote this guy



cheers mate, interesting link too, it seems him and Pat Condell need to shack up some time.

I did for you, what a short sighted status-quo supporting buffoon.

"These youth should be content to make my big macs for the rest of their lives! Lousy no goodin' disrespectin' authority YOUTHS!"

Yeah, they have NO good reason to be upset... Typical response of the wealthy.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/10-7

>> ^ghark:

wow, wish I could downvote this guy

Actually, those ads which depict men as lousy at childrearing and housework are just a subtler form of sexism (towards women, of course, but also men imo), but not misandry. The implied message is "housework and childrearing are the woman's job, only she's good at it", basically regurgitating the same crap from the 50s, but more perniciously.

There's this absolutely pathetic ad for Renault*, for example, which basically says "doing fatherly duties is emasculating, thankfully you've got our car to still be a man." (The slogan in French translates roughly to "so men can still be men", while the Spanish one says "fathers, but men", as if the two were contrary to eachother)

The reason why you won't see misandry in publicity is because, contrary to sexism, it is not an established cultural phenomenon, so advertisers know it will not reach a large audience.


*http://youtu.be/3Syyk7geHTY

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I do think there is a problem with misandry being accepted. I seldom watch TV, but especially in advertising, men in family-situations are often described as stupid or incapable, while there is a woman who rolls her eyes and does everything right. We don't see it the other way around anymore, and that's very good. But we should not see it either way imho. I try to look for an example.



Edit: Can't find anything at the moment, so consider it just my uninformed opinion :-)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine : )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.