Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's hip to hate on Japanese culture because the recent manga/anime/otaku/cosplay craze has peaked. It's just like KISS in 1982 - and Macs. (sorry for the obscure references to past threads. That's how I roll.)>> ^JesseoftheNorth:
I agree. Lighten up, people! I love you Japan. Don't ever change.>> ^kraun124:
I actually liked it. Not at all the comments I was expecting. Maybe she was just doing it for fun and/or she likes anime. Jaded-ism is getting a little cliche.

lying

Rubber - meet glue. Of course it isn't lying. It's truth. You just don't like it. I already said Reagan increased military spending. No denying that he did. He cut taxes as well, but those tax cuts resulted in an increase in federal tax recipts, rather than a decrease in budgets. The missing piece of the puzzle - which took place in 1982 - was not having Congress to push through on domestic spending decreases. It was Democrat control of congress that stymied that 3rd (and arguably most critical) pieces.

So yes - despite what you're being spoon fed on leftist blogs or liberal revisionist history pages - Reagan was a fiscal conservative. Sadly, without Congress on board he wasn't able to force through domestic spending cuts like he did the tax cuts in 80-81. That left him with only two-thirds of his agenda. It was enough to give the country over 20 years of prosperity, but with ever-increasing domestic spending it was borrowed prosperity.

I hope you get what's coming to you

Why - thank you. I appreciate when people acknowledge my hard work, personal diligence, self-sacrifice, and financial prudence with the suggestion of appropriate rewards. Your realization of my deserved remuneration and accolades certainly indicates that you are not without wisdom even though you allow your reason to occasionally be eclipsed by stooping to profanity and generalized name calling. Keep working on it!

while maintaining popular support

I'd cut all these spending programs and reduce the Federal budget to 1930 levels because it is necessary for the survival of the Republic. There is no money to support our network of socialist inspired domestic programs any longer. We have gone too far, and it has to be cut. Not reduced. Not 'frozen'. CUT. People will be unhappy with that. I understand that reality. I also understand that the nation is destined for financial collapse and subsequent balkanization (or worse) unless we cut federal spending radically, painfully, and permenantly. That is how I see this debt problem. The debt is a time bomb that is leading to the eventual collapse of the entire system. The loss of a few cushy social programs pales in comparison. So - in all honesty - I don't care about 'public support' for the cuts. The cuts are necessities. The programs are luxuries. People who cling to luxuries at the expense of necessities are either selfish or stupid - and I don't have any sympathy for such persons.

^ God damn, you're a lying piece of shit.

Reagan more than tripled the deficit:

"The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[18] due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits...."
(source)

"Technically, the GOP only controlled the Senate and the White House after the 1980 election, but de facto, they had an alliance with the Boll Weevil House Democrats, led by then-Democrat Phil Gramm, who rammed through tax and spending cuts in alliance with the GOP. Only with the 1982 election did real Democrats gain enough seats to regain operational control of the House. In response to that loss of control by the GOP-Boll Weevil alliance, Phil Gramm resigned from Congress in 1983 and became a Republican, running for Congress, then the Senate.
(source)

You're an evil little shit, whoever you are, and I hope you get what's coming to you.

I, SiftBot here by agree to appear in the #########'s production of the Christian Television Series ####### ######### for no less then one complete season with the option of contract renewal to be considered upon the completion of the production cycle.

Further, I will henceforth be by all accounts and purposes known by the stage name, COLBY, with no further references to my original designation given upon my 'hello world!' birth date from the signing of this document forward. All record and references to my original name will be deleted, or eliminated as needed with the exception of this document which is to be sealed and stored away from any public access except in the case of breach of said contract.

By signing I hereby bind myself to this contract and to the services of it's provider,
00101101 10110000, Jan 5'th, 1982.

> "HOLY SHIT A TALKING COMPUTER!"

no because C64 SAM (software automatic mouth) was doing it already in 1982
...Mr. Hatchet AND Aggro the Axe had it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Automatic_Mouth

no doubt the mac sounds better but the HP jump was enormous

I loved my VIC-20, it was all I could afford so I made the most of it. I think it was a 22 character column display. And I only had 2.5 kilobytes of RAM. I was getting my Associates in Electronics when I got the VIC-20, from 1982 to 1984 so it was perfect for learning to program BASIC and writing programs to solve electronics and algebra problems.

I pushed it to its limits, sometimes storing data in the 500+ bytes of screen memory when I didn't have to display anything and using one letter variables to save memory, like A=A+1, Z=Z-6. My computer teacher commended me for my resourcefulness and creativity for finding ways to maximize the limited power of the VIC-20. But he also criticized me for bad programming habits, like using one letter variables that were non-descriptive of the info they stored. He always said BASIC was horrible and I should focus on getting proficient with Pascal.

I didn't understand what he meant until I got my first computer job, part of which involved trying to fix a program someone had written in BASIC. It was a total mess, undocumented spaghetti code with GOTO statements that felt like you were watching a pinball ricocheting inside a pinball machine. I finally understood what he meant.
Anyway I miss my VIC-20.

Too bad they didn't predict the company's failure in 1982.

... or that South Park would have a Braniff plane and name in their closing credits.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Considering his first marriage ended in 1977 and he didn't remarry until 2009, and that he began hosting "this show" (The Late Show) in 1993, it's rather likely that no infidelity was involved, at least on Dave's part. Even Late Night debuted in 1982, so he'd already have been divorced.


He's been with Regine Lasko since 1988, so infidelity was involved.

Considering his first marriage ended in 1977 and he didn't remarry until 2009, and that he began hosting "this show" (The Late Show) in 1993, it's rather likely that no infidelity was involved, at least on Dave's part. Even Late Night debuted in 1982, so he'd already have been divorced.

>> ^squeak:
This is the very first thing I thought of (warning: kind of graphic but sfw I'd imagine)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjEdLuqK1RQ
FACEMELT YAAARRHAAGGHAGGGGHH!!


I was thinking about this one

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4qhrc_poltergeist-1982-extrait_shortfilms

Tags for this video have been changed from 'musicvideo' to 'musicvideo, joe strummer, topper headon, combat rock, 80s, 1982' - edited by rasch187

http://www.videosift.com/video/I-want-it-all-Queen
http://www.videosift.com/video/Queen-It-s-late
http://www.videosift.com/video/Queen-Live-Fat-Bottomed-Girl-1982

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pink floyd, the wall, roger waters, rasch edit please' to 'pink floyd, the wall, roger waters, gerald scarfe, alan parker, bob geldof, 80s, 1982' - edited by rasch187

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video 1982 Interview With Ian Anderson. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Wow, I didn't know all that. I'll do a bit more research before making such an assured assertion next time. Thanks for the enlightenment.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
^Wrong.

Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ & Puthoff (1977, pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors made by James Randi who has failed on numerous occasions to award the money when he has been proved wrong. Instead, he makes up reasons after the fact about why an experiment failed to meet his criteria.

Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that "Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts" (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out" with regard to his $1,000,000 challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89). Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a published, handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any claimed error could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong. In a rejoinder to Puthoff & Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for a clear example, see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should have paid the $1,000, but he never did."

Big surprise.