wasting my time to point out that Abraham Lincoln was a republican? Or that Social Security is a system that takes money out of every paycheck I've ever made in my life that I won't be getting any money back on? Ditto for Medicare? Or was this supposed to be a funny comic or something? Cause I don't get it.
Oh, I can do it too. Except mine would actually make sense and your hilarious political spin is about as accurate as your nonexistent sex life.
(please log in to view the image)
It's always amusing when liberals equate change with progress.
Also Janus, be a doll and don't engage in political debates until you understand what you're talking about and not quoting Maddow/Marr/The View, because it severely discredits your stance. Mk pumpkin?
__________________ Greed is Good.
Last edited by Dr McBeefington on Apr 20th, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change.
SS / Medicare aren't too terribly burdensome, though. I've always thought that the way we take care of people after their economic productivity has ended is one of the most important class-features of humanity. Cutting off SS just because we aren't going to see the money is a bit Borg-like, if you ask me. [SPOILER - highlight to read]: This assumes that a similar (if reformed) program will be in place for me and my children.
Cutting off SS/medicare is retarded on so many different levels. If they're going to do it, they better wait until I'm old because I'll shit a brick if they take it away now (grandparents), or in a few decades (parents). European countries definitely take care of older people a lot better than we do. At the same time, with 300 million people, certain things that you guys argue for or against, may be a logistical nightmare. Pretty idiotic to compare us to countries like Norway, Denmark, or Sweden.
Doesn't Social Security require that more put in to it than will use it?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I posted the pictures, what I wanted it to say, everything. I know the Artist has been there, because he picked up the request of the person directly beneath me in the posting and did his Sig.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
There are a few quasi-objective elements to measuring 'talent' (I say 'quasi' because it's sometimes extremely difficult to determine accurately). If you compare two artists in the same field, you can largely determine which of the two has greater technical proficiency. With guitarists, you could measure speed and accuracy of notes. With vocalists, you could measure octave ranges and vibrato frequency, and so on for various musicians. These aren't always absolute; I remember an interview with Journey's manager Herbie Herbert in which Journey's Neal Schon was compared with Eddie Van Halen during the '70s in which Van Halen opened for Journey. Schon was in awe of EVH's technical wizardry and sought to apprentice under him; Herbie revealed EVH had sought to learn from Schon how to create memorable solos and melodic riffs. The moral being that one musician may possess more technical aptitude than another, but remain deficient in other aspects.
On the other hand, style and genre play a significant role. Not all musicians showcase their technical proficiency like the members of Rush. If you listen to Toto, you may be unimpressed by Steve Lukather's fretwork... until you purchase one of his solo albums and do some research, whereupon you discover he is one of the most revered and respected guitarists in the business.
Tl;dr: with art (be it classic art or music, movies & tv) there are a few areas in which artistic talent can be measured somewhat objectively. But so much of it comes down to personal preference. It's not like Star Wars canon, in which there is an unquestionable line of authority (GL). Where you run into trouble is people who are so dictated by their personal preferences that they have to alienate those who disagree as wrong.
IT'S PERFECT AND YOUR WRONG IF YOU DISLIKE IT FOR ANY REASON! HATER, HATER, HATER! YOUR STUPID! YOU DONT GET IT FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME!
^ If I had a nickel for any time I've read that about Mass Effect 3, The Dark Knight, or Adele, I could retire a multimillionaire. But that's what happens when people can't bracket off their feelings from reality.
Last time I checked, everyone hated ME3 and EA's stock was dropping from so many people being pissed off.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Yeah, same here. While I agree that the game is flawed, its no moreso than ME1 or 2 for most of it. But people ***** about Rannoch because they couldn't save both races, they loathe Kai Leng, dislike Thessia and detest the ending. It comes from nitpicking the game for nearly 900 pages.
Apr 20th, 2012 07:43 AM
