Badmovies.org Forum

Okay, folks, here you have it. An official thread just for complaining, whining, bellyaching, venting, cursing, attacking, or otherwise releasing anxst. No particular set of topics, just your open invitation to riff on what gets under your skin. It's therapeutic. Bring it on.

I'll start.

You know what really grinds my gears? People who treat the left lane of the freeway like it's the slow lane. I've lived in several states, but I've never seen it as epidemic as it is in Arizona. It's as if there is an unspoken ettiquete of which I'm not privy that the right lane is for getting on and off the freeway, the left lane is for cruising just at the speed limit, and the middle lanes are for passing. I'm not joking. Come to the Phoenix area some time and check it out, you'd think it was diabolical.

I'll tell ya what really burns my butt!!!!!!!






A midget with a lighter.

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Here are some of mine:

* People who stop to look at something in the supermarket and leave their shopping cart diagonally across the aisle so no one can pass them on either side.

* People (and sorry ladies, it's women who do this 99% of the time) who hold up the checkout line in a store while they dig through their purse looking for the exact change to pay for something.  "That's nine dollars and twenty-five, thirty-five, forty . . . wait, I think I have some pennies . . . forty-one, forty-two . . . I know I have more pennies in here . . . forty-three, forty-four . . . "  JUST PAY WITH A DAMNED TEN DOLLAR BILL!

* People who carry on a conversation during a movie.



*

Im gonna love this thread   :bouncegiggle: 

Rude people~ How difficult is it to be polite? Please, thank you, excuse me... Not difficult!

People who yell and belittle service workers just because they can.

People who let their dogs poop in my yard.

My drunk, obnoxious, loud, neighbors. Seriously, look into AA or at the very least don't yell obscenities to no one in particular while stumbling to your car.

people who hijack other people's profile and start ranting so that the person whose profile was being abused gets yelled at for a reason they didn't do.
people who blame the president for the most obscene  thing, as in the oil spill, yes, the president caused the oil spill. (idiots) The president holds BP responsible since it was BP's job to keep the oil rig updated and what not, not Obama ya idiots! :hatred:

Heh heh. I remember right after he was elected I heard people complaining about how he was going to destroy the economy before he even took office, like it wasn't already f***ed. I'm not speaking as either an Obama supporter or non-supporter, but that's just ignorant.

hi
ok here i go

people who constantly keep pressing the button on pedestrian lights thinking that it will make the stop light come on quicker:

strangers who stroke my dog first (THEN ASK ME IF IT BITES) its too late if it does.

people who laugh at my son when he has a seizure...

many many more

geeez now i have a headache :hatred:

Wow! do you live on my block?!  There's some jerks that live around here and walk their dog up and down our block to poop on our lawns and don't pick it up!  My mom has been threatening to do something terrible to them if she ever catches them!

We also have loud obnoxious drunk neighbors.. the guy is OK, but his wife/girlfriend is terrible.  I think she tried to kiss me one day while I was trying to avoid her on the way to our car.  My friend heard her shouting a conversation about intimate activities this past weekend.

I also live next door to someone that I assume is a minister at a church in Indiana and every weekend parks a huge school bus on our block to take everyone to church on Sunday.  We have a hard enough time with parking here and then that darn bus comes taking up 3-4 parking spots every weekend  :hatred:.

Wow, as a parent of two, I can tell you I would have an extremely hard time with that. My wife would go completely ballistic. However, keep in mind that not everyone who reacts to such situations with laughter is necessarily being mean-spirited.

To relate one such experience, one which has always kind of haunted me alitte, my ex-wife had a sister with Downs Syndrome. A very sweet girl. She also had an imaginary person she frequently talked to, and sometimes argued with and yelled at. The first time I ever experienced it we were visiting her parents when we were still dating. My ex had explained the situation, but still, the first time it happened I was still thrown off-guard, just not something I was accustomed to. She started yelling suddenly, and it startled me. I hadn’t even realized I had done it, but I reacted with a little nervous laughter, probably a defense mechanism whose purpose was to make light of an uncomfortable situation I was not accustomed to. My ex later told me about it, and she was a bit indignant about it and suggested her parents had been offended. Of course I felt terrible and always carried guilt over it, but I also had some resentment because I’m not convinced that her parents were really offended, because I had a wonderful relationship with them, particularly her father.

I only share this because I can tell you that people have reactions to situations that are new/shocking/disturbing to them that are not intended. You may be completely aware of this already and very good at discerning between someone who is reacting out of a defense mechanism or just being a dick. I, on the other hand, am not very good at this, and if it were my kids involved, would likely be incapable of telling the difference

Ah yes, that is certianly a pet peeve of my mom.

What really eats me up are people who say the Wii isn't a serious gaming console and it doesn't have any good games.  What is really funny about this is how when there is a good game on the system, they say port it over to the Xbox 360 or PS3!  To which I say: but if the system does not have any good games, when do you want this one?

I also hate it when they say the Xbox 360 and PS3 are superior.  To which I say, they are not.  They are on the same level as the Wii with their own glaring problems.  I would start ranting, but you don't want to hear that.   :teddyr:

The final one that extremely gets me are people who complain about bad TV shows, movies, games, and such, but yet still watch or play them.  If you hate them so, why are you still watching them?!  Isn't easier to refuse to acknowledge their existance and not rant about them, which gets more people to see them?  People confuse me.

This is terrible.  I mean this is REALLY terrible.  One thing that bugs me is when people laugh at the misfortune of others.  When I was a kid my best friend had cystic fibrosis.  Some kids made fun of him because he was small and frail . . . some kids even made fun of ME because I hung around with him and sometimes helped him carry his books and stuff in school.  Then when he passed away everyone was suddenly sad and acted like they had always been his good friends.     

Just count your blessings that your drunk, obnoxious neighbors don't poop in your yard.

people who live in thickly settled areas and buy  basketball nets for their kids. I would rather my home be robbed on a weekly basis than have to listen to it, it's the worst. if you see one of those things going up, save your self the headache and just move right away

my neighbours constantly annoy me every single day by being the kind of people who have this instinctive need to let everyone in the entire block know when they are about. shouting slamming doors laughing arguing. I wish they'd move. the other week they bought their son an old style car horn to play with, which he does every day, all the time, with their window open, just tooting this car horn.

it's hard to believe how inconsiderate some poeple are.

my new thing is when they start playing basketball I start playing my guitar to drown in out.  Now all the moms want me

my plan backfired!

hi
thank you guys for your kind words. i know what you mean flick and i do try to shut them out.however, i have had many such occsions, one guy walked out in disgust because my son had the misfortune to have a siezure in a restaurant where this guy was eating. one woman who knew my son very well invited him to her sons birthday only to lock him up in a room because she said he scared the other kids, boy did she regret that. i could start an entire thread of the ignorance my son has endured but i shall not. this site is for movie lovers and i like it this way but once again thank-you
 macabre

You don't have to explain a thing to me, macabre. Like I said, you've probably developed the skill to tell if a person is just being an ignorant moron or if they're just dealing with a situation for the first time. I was horrified to think that I had done something that could be taken that way. Anyway, I didn't mean for the thread to go dark. It was meant in the spirit of catharsis. Carry on, everyone.

People who have found God and feel the need to dump their religion on me without asking first.
The fact that I made a friendly reply to some guy's friendly comment on YouTube, and when I checked his page he had all these racist and 'White Power' vids as favorites.

the KKK, why can't everyone accept everyone else? :bluesad:

:bouncegiggle:

Like so many of you mentioned,  rude or inconsiderate people are on the top my list too.  Don't ya just love it when you're walking into a store, supermarket or public building and the person entering ahead of you lets the door practically hit you in the face.


Unsupervised children. I just don't understand parents who don't seem to notice that their kids are running amok in restaurants, department stores, theme parks etc.

People who take up 2 parking spaces at the mall.

People who try to cut in line.

Telephone menus. Press 2, press 3, and so on and so on.

I just love venting!   :teddyr:



 

I absolutely detest those.  After pressing 10 different options you finally wind up on some menu with no option that applies to you and no place else to go. 

Also, tech support numbers (like Symantec / Norton anti-virus) that connect you to some guy in India who knows absolutely nothing about computers - literally one-tenth as much as the average person who's calling him up looking for help - but he's got an instruction manual he can flip through for an entire freakin' hour while you wait.  I mean, can you believe that crap? 

 :buggedout: :buggedout: +  :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:

My sister. Actually, make that teenage girls in general. Better yet, make it teenagers in general.


Keep in mind that when it comes to people I try to judge on an individual basis and not judge people by group.  I also try not to hate people. However, most teenagers I know tick me off. People in general do that, but I personally know more annoying teenagers than annoying adults.

Microsoft- everything Microsoft to me is s**t! :hatred:

I'll start with the disclaimer that I get the rule "slower traffic keep right."  Like you, it burns me up also when folks are in the left lane and NOT passing anyone.

But....

A HUGE pet peeve of mine is folks in the left lane thinking that they have a specially granted license to exceed the speed limit and follow dangerously closely while I am legally passing a slower car.  I take GREAT pains to NOT bottleneck the left lane (by pacing the car I am passing).

I move into the left lane for one purpose...to pass a slower car.  If I am going the speed limit (and thus the car I am passing is going SLOWER than the speed limit), I am under no obligation to speed up to allow someone else to exceed the legal limit.  Nor do I particularly like the way speeders try to "intimidate" me by getting 4 inches off my bumper at 70+ miles per hour.

When I complete my pass, I will move out of the left lane.

I could continue on related topics, but let's just say "aggressive drivers" grind my gears.

We have a road here I drive several times per week that I average seeing or doing evasion action at least once per trip because of the aggressive driving.  It is REALLY bad...two lane country road, speed limit 55, with people running 70-ish and passing on hills and in curves, passing 10 cars at a time, cutting people off.  Sometimes I wonder if I've stumbled into the 2010 running of The Cannon Ball Run.

Aggressive Drives have to go....that's my rant.

Political correctness.   It will be the death of all humor in our society one day, mark my words.  I'm tired of the world worrying who gets offended by what.  I'm half Polish, feel free to tell as many jokes as you want.  If we can't laugh at stereotypes in our culture then we're seriously screwed humor wise.  

Along these lines, I'm tired of the world always coming up with new things to call people that is supposedly "less offensive".  "Midgets" are now "little people".  "Fat" people are now "calorically challenged".   Either way, no matter what you call people its just a fancy way to say a person is "different".   If everyone is that concerned, why don't we just call everyone "human" because thats what we are.  

lol I'm the total opposite. I think people drive about 50% too slow

They're a bunch of retarded rednecks, I don't think they exist anymore though ? (not sure)

They definitely still exist, though they're only a tiny fraction of what they once were. 

You know what really grinds my gears?

Robin Williams acting as if he's funny. Please stop, Robin.

i got you beat, i'm Polish AND French

He was quite funny as a stand up comedian, many years ago.  I absolutely hate his movies though. 

The noise of the vuvuzela. :buggedout:

Try one at www.blowme.co.za (http://www.blowme.co.za) ~ blow a virtual one and then imagine thousands of the bloody things blowing in a soccer stadium. At once.  :buggedout:

Oh oh Trev: I just looked it up on wiki.


Really?  That must be quite the assault on the senses!


Sounds (yes that is a pun) like you are out of luck!


- this made me laugh: "quite irritating" - how very 'Brit' of him!


Ummm...Trevor, maybe it is a good thing you were not able to get tickets?  You'll be able to hear that thing everywhere!

The confused and self-conflicting feelings I get whenever I try and sort out my thoughts on important topics such as politics or religion, but it's certainly not limited to those topics.

 

Too many things in this world drive me insane. Here's a few:

Screamers : Of all the pranks on the internet, I friggin' hate these most of all. My first experience with one of these abominations was on halloween when I was in grade five. It screwed me up ever since. What drives me even more insane is when dumbass parents show their kids these things PLUS videotape the kid's reaction. I've seen a few of these and it not only makes me hate screamers more, but it also proves to me that parents don't give a crap about their child's mental health.

Heavy Metal Haters : As a fan of metal, it truly grinds my s*** when I hear stupid people (mainly crazy religious people and pop fans) make stupid assumptions about Metal when in reality they know absolutley nothing about the genre.

Religious Extremists : Now, as you all probably know, I'm Roman Catholic. I've been trying to follow God as best I can and have been trying to change some of my lifestyles and attitudes. I try not to be overly angry and judgemental, but when I hear about these lowlife extremists on the internet or in the news, I can't help but want to hurt these people. Jack Chick, Jesus Camp and the Phelps family are the main ones that p**s me off. These people claim to speak for God when in actuality, they're trying to brainwash, scare and disturb the people that they are trying to "save". Jack sends out buls*** messages about other religious groups, rock 'n' roll, dungeons and dragons, etc.
Jesus Camp brainwashes kids into becoming terrorists and we all know about the Phelps family.

That's all I have for now.

I immediately distrust ANYONE who makes the slightest suggestion that they are speaking for God. I'm a deist, so I don't follow any religion or doctrine based on the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Quran, or any other supposedly "inspired" text. If I used those teachings or doctrines as the basis of my faith, I would have a pretty shoddy opinion of God.

Aren't they more like Jonas Bros. and Lady Gaga fans?

Dirty public restrooms...all of which you can read about here...

http://darksidersrealm.blogspot.com/2010/03/potty-pefection-by-darksider.html

Reminded of a couple more while out this afternoon..

Seeing someones underwear.Not only the young guys who wear their pants around their knees but woman who see nothing wrong with flashing their thong. Its not sexy, its sleazy. I don't care how fine you think your ass is you look ridiculous. 

Drivers who break for no apparent reason over and over again. WTF are you breaking for!

people who say that Plan 9 is the world's worst movie- dude, there are much more worse movies out there! :hatred:

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT." -Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"

There are a couple tests of a person's character that don't fail. The first is how they treat service people. The second is how they drive. If somebody you know fails these tests, they are a***oles, pure and true.

The internet adds a new wrinkle:

(http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/greaterdickwad.jpg)

It is. It sounds like you're in a hive of very angry bees.  :buggedout:





Yup, I guess so. SOL as Shadow would say.   :buggedout: :wink:





Quite irritating is putting it mildly.  :buggedout: :buggedout:



Ummm...Trevor, maybe it is a good thing you were not able to get tickets?  You'll be able to hear that thing everywhere!

[/quote]

Thankfully, Cape Town is far from us.  :wink:

That unfinished highway is a great South African legend ~ started in the late 1960's, the highway was never completed due to a design fault leaving the highest part of it suspended in mid-air. Quite frightening when you're up there and movie and commercial crews have used either sides ~ separated by a kilometre or so of open space ~ for stunts.

This is a picture of the vuvuzela on one of the highways:  :buggedout:

(http://5g8.net/uploader/12763312524588_26413_1.jpg)

And, off the same bridge, this is to show you how bad my driving is when I'm in Cape Town.  :wink:

(http://5g8.net/uploader/12763314555618_4_cover.jpg)


It's actually a still from the film Consequence filmed in Cape Town.

 :buggedout:  You can't hear that thing 900 miles away?  I hope nobody lives closer!

What grinds my gears: noisy neighbours.  For a while we had an apartment above a restaurant.  They had the speakers for their sound system mounted in the ceiling and the staff used to crank it up and party after closing.  (They closed at 2 am) Moving to a farm in the country after that was heavenly!

5 things that really make my blood boil:

1) Blind Hate - racism, prejudice, people looking down upon others for no justifiable reason I can see.

2) Disrespect - I was taught to treat others with respect and most of those older folks amongst us. Important to remember we'll all be older someday a little courtesy and patience for others can be a nice thing.

3) Animal abuse - if there's anything that really bothers me deep down, it's this. Especially people who abuse their own pets. Innocent animals don't deserve abuse, they are living feeling creatures...only someone unfeeling can inflict such pain on another creature.

4) Impatience - Patience is a virtue. It's a key element in my own discipline to remain patient and understanding of others and try to put myself in their place.

5) People who dismiss things with no knowledge of them. Like kids who refuse to watch older movies because they're black and white or from years ago. Hello, should we refuse to read all the classics of literature - I don't think so. Should we only record history for the last 10-20 years - I think not.

This is kinda off topic, but did you know that a black cop went undercover in the KKK?
That's friggin' hilarious.

I think there's a central disconnect in the way people think of virtues. They are not attributes that people possess. Patience is an action, something you have to do. When people say "I don't have the patience for such-and-such," what they are really saying is they are too lazy to try it.

Are you sure that this isn't a link to a porn site?
Because it kinda looks like it. Just askin'.

Seeing other people's feet that really shouldn't be wearing sandals or flip flops.   Especially guys who mostly seem to have less attractive feet than gorillas.  Then again I've seen some women with much more awful feet.

Polo shirts- (to me) they are ugly as sin!

Ah yes.  I get that problem with people when I try to introduce them into black and white films.  I'm trying to fix that by showing some of my cousins and friends films of that era.  First was The Thing from Another World and next will be Them.  Got to hit them with films that'll grab their attention so I can slowly introduce them into other genres.

People who are full of crap about almost everything that comes out of their mouths and lie right to your face.


(Stop here if you don't want the long version of what sparked this post - warning: cathartic venting to follow).


Case in point (happened this weekend):

My daughter is involved in riding ponies in horse shows and we went to one this weekend.  This usually involves the following process:

(1) Everyone from the barn, kinda like a "team" in a sense, works on Thursday to load the trailer(s) and get everything ready to go.  This is a TON of work but is bearable if everyone helps out.

(2) On Friday, the horses are loaded, transported to the show, and they all have 'practice' on Friday afternoon.  The trailer(s) are unloaded and our stalls at the barn are set up.  Again, this is a TON of physical work and everyone should help out.

(3) The show events are Saturday and Sunday.

(4) On Sunday afternoon, when everyone is done with their divisions, we pack up the barn and reload the trailer.  Again, this is a TON of work, and it is often (like today) very hot (mid 90's).

Okay, we have one girl on our "team," let's call her OneGirl, that MAY show up for Thursday's work and does NOT show up on Friday until it is time to ride (ie, the trailer is unloaded, the barn set up and all the chores are DONE).  She's 9 or 10.

Okay, the rub from today....my wife and I and our trainer (and my two children) loaded about 90+% of the stuff on the trailer this afternoon before the last two girls were done.  OneGirl was done, but we had not seen her around.

The only stuff we did not load was what was still being used by the last two girls to ride and the horses themselves.

Well, my wife and I were watching one of the other girls ride when OneGirl's Mom approached us quite upset because the trainer wanted the other girls (not OneGirl, but two or three others about her age) to go the barn to UNLOAD the horses when they got back into town.  It's their job, and they are expected to help out like this all the time.

She did not think it was necessary for the girls to do that...they were supposed to go to her house for a sleep-over.

The Lie:  "Well, we are over there loading the trailer right now, so I we are doing our part."

Bold face lie.  *WE* had already loaded the trailer and they were nowhere to be seen when we did it.  When I next went through the barn, not one additional thing was loaded since we left to go to the show ring.

Liar.

Lack of respect for the natural environment. Besides the evils of big companies and corporations polluting our planet, it doesn't hurt each of us to go that little extra mile to put trash where it belongs, to recycle and to compost (or like me contribute to someone else's).

Knee-jerk Christian bashing! Especially from Hollywood and the media.   When people who have never set foot inside a church or read a single page of the Bible dismiss and ridicule all people of faith because of

(A) Stuff that happened a thousand years ago when the Church was actively ignoring what Christ taught
(B) The actions of a few nutjobs who are about as representative of Christianity as I am of the Slug Beings from Planet Talos.

Maybe try to actually learn a little bit about our faith before you dismiss all of us as idiots and hypocrites.

anybody who argues for the sake of arguing.

Probably at the top of my list.  

Being an "almost ... educated man," I do believe the term is "bald-faced lie".   :wink:

No, it isn't, don't worry. :smile: The main site's URL is also a little weird: it's www.spitorswallow.co.za (http://www.spitorswallow.co.za).  :buggedout: :smile:

Of course, she was pretty darn BOLD to tell that particular lie at that particular time.

 :wink: :thumbup:

There's an administrative assistant in my office who started watching THE GODFATHER for the first time a few months ago.  She said she couldn't get into the movie because it's "too old," so she never finished watching it.  I'm 46 years old and she's a year or two older than me.  This movie is IN COLOR and was made DURING HER LIFETIME and she said it's too old.

I've set my foot inside several churches, and read a bit of the Bible, so I guess I'm clear to bash religion.

So I guess that brings me to what grinds MY gears: people who try and indoctrinate me with their religious views and their faith. Some people seem very intent on "spreading the gospel" and feel it's important to have prayer in school, yet they seem to ignore where the Bible tells them they should pray in secret. Please, could you do a little more of that?

I actually do know what you're saying about the Church when it was actively ignoring what Christ taught. I agree with that statement thoroughly. Unfortunately, not much has changed a thousand years later. Unfortunately for anyone who actually believes in what Christ taught, the Church is forever going to speak for you in the eyes of the multitudes. Not a thing you can do about it, and it's a deep well of material for those faith bashers to draw from. It's kind of like some U.S. presidents (I won't bring up examples because I'm not going to get partisan), there could have been a number of great things they did, that will forever be overshadowed by negative things. All you can do is tend to your own beliefs, because humankind will forever contradict one another with what each one "knows" to be the truth.

on Youtube, when I look up some of my favorite bands, there is always so B.S. about how Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga, or Miley Cyrus is better and the song(s) I listen to is s**t! BULLs**t, Your taste in music is different than that of others! LEARN SOME FRIGGEN RESPECT YOU GOD DAMN DUMBASSES, YOU'RE BEING A TOTAL DICKHEAD!!!!!! :hatred: :hatred: :hatred: :hatred:

Burgo, that reminds me of the idiot at my neighborhood video store who was concerned about me wanting to rent a certain film. His reasons were:

1. The film was in black and white.
2. It was in French
3. It was violent
4. It was anti-police
5. It was only on VHS*
6. He didn't think anyone would want to see it because of 1 through 5.

The film's name? La Haine and yes, I did rent it and yes, it was good.

* I found it on DVD at the same shop a few days later.  :question:

  For a Christian who believes in and honors the teachings of Christ, attempting to spread one's faith is an imperative, not a choice.  However, the clear example of Scripture is to spread the faith by gentle persuasion and moral example, NOT by violence, force, or obnoxiousness.  The Church lost its way when it picked up the sword in the Middle Ages.

   However, while the Church today is so splintered and fractured today that it is almost impossible to speak of in the singular, there are plenty of churches out there filled with good people who try to honor the teachings of Christ and obey the Scriptures to the best of their ability.  No church is perfect because churches are made up of people and people are messed up creatures.  But I firmly believe there is more good in the church than bad.

  A very common criticism that is levelled against people of faith is that they are failing to obey one Scripture or another (like praying in secret, as you mentioned), and then criticized roundly when they try to obey another Scripture (like, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations . . .").  For a person of faith, Scripture shouldn't be followed in snippets.  It needs to be read, studied, and followed in its entirety to the best of our ability.  The majority of a Christian's prayer life should indeed be done in private, one-on-one with God.  But there are times and places where Christians should pray as a body (corporate prayer, we call it, but not in the "business" sense of the word), and there are even occasions for public prayer.

  I think a big part of the gripe about prayer in schools is that it was an active part of our nation's academic life for over 150 years, and the courts struck it down without citing a single legal precedent for doing so . . . and now the "Separation of Church and State" issue has been pushed to such ridiculous extremes that teachers in many public schools can't even wish their students a "Merry Christmas."  I don't think even the most deistic of our founding fathers ever intended for the Establishment Clause to reach that level of intrusiveness.  Compare the statistics on reading level, test scores, literacy, student behavior, teen pregnancy and drug use, and almost every measurable category of performance in our schools between the 1950's and today.  Are we sure the Supreme Court did us a favor there?  Maybe those prayers DID do some good!

Aw, man, there I go sharing my faith again.

I guess I just ground your gears.  Sorry.

The problem is what religion to teach? certainly most Christians would not approve of the Muslim faith being taught. Muslim prayers in school! How about Buddhism? I don't send my kids to school to be preached at. If I wanted that I would send them to church. No offense. I understand and appreciate your dedication to your faith. Its admirable. I just don't think its for everyone.

Too often the bible is used to divide people. To belittle them, make them feel inferior in some way. That has NO place in school.

Sorry about the quote thing.. I couldnt figure out how to just quote that section.   :teddyr:

I can understand both sides of the issue. on the one hand, the US is all about freedom freedom freedom. on the other hand I think it would not be awful if the bible was taught in schools. I mean, if I decided to raise my kids in thailand or something, I wouldn't be shocked if they taught some buddhism in the schools.

I think the bottom line is christian notions of morality permeate our society.  So I htink that's like  both an argument for having those things taught in school and against because doing so would actually be somewhat redundent.

Look, you and I are clearly going to disagree here. The Establishment Clause is just one of those things. It seems to be crystal clear to me, yet to you it seems equally clear, and we don't agree. It says nothing about excluding prayer from public school, yet it also says nothing about including it. Again, back to my statement that humankind is plagued with the tendency to see the truth and something that is very clear, yet it can be strikingly different to what someone else sees as the truth. Where I'm puzzled is how the exclusion of prayer in school can be "intrusive." Seems a contradiction to me. This is the kind of irrationality that the presence of religion and faith bring to any forum.

The two of us can go back and forth all day long in regards to the historical context, and we're still not going to get anywhere. I can bring up, for example, that catholic immigrants from Europe in the 1800's protested to having to recite Protestant prayers in school. "Under God" got added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's. This is a topic that has been gone back and forth since the country's inception.

The insistence on prayer in school can only come from the religious right, because, as you say, it is a moral imperative to spread the gospel. The insistence on prayer NOT being in school can only come from the liberal left. And on and on it goes. Who decides what is acceptable prayer? Can a muslim child bring out their rug and pray to the east five times a day? Why should these questions even be an issue at all?

It may be the imperative of Christians to spread their faith, but it is not the imperative of the government. The government of a free society must remain secular at all times, and let faith and business fend for itself. It falls up on the parent to provide matters of faith to their children, and thus, send them to a religious school if that's what they want for them, not the other way around.

I know we're never going to agree on this. Nothing I can do about that. We both seem to use the constitution as our argument, yet we have opposite views. Funny how that works.

Other things that really p**ses me of:

Modern movie goers who endlessly praise cgi and constantly condemn animatronics, stop-motion and actual set construction for being "fake".

People who give nasty looks at you just because of what you're wearing.

Teenagers...just teenagers. I know I can't criticize every one of them for being immature, stuck-up little s***s. Unfortunatley, the majority is like this. I hate all of their stupidity, close mindedness and immaturity.

Yes. Teens can be intensely stupid and annoying much of the time. Their raging hormones make them even more annoying and stupid, as they tackle new emotions for the first time and try to pretend they have wisdom. Ah, youth is wasted on the young. I feel like such a curmudgeon.

Oh, I can beat that.  Today, I was exiting the supermarket with a box filled with wine bottles; it was heavy, but this older (or should I say "even older") man was coming in pushing a cart.  I stood back, pushed the door open for him with one arm while holding the box with the other.  He walked right past me like an automaton like it was my job to hold the door for this sack - he saw me hesitate and open the door for him - we were merely inches apart, yet no "thank you" or "thanks" for having inconvenienced myself.   :hatred:  As I walked behind him and out the door, I said loudly "You're welcome!"  M.F.Aho. 

:hatred: The ultimate gear grinder. 

Bastards!  They're all bastards I say!  But this brings to mind another pet peeve . . . when you go to the "Employee Recommendations" section of a video store and it's full of crappy movies.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when 90% of the movies in the recommendations section are crap SOMETHING IS WRONG AND SOMEONE MUST BE PUNISHED.  THUS SPEAKS DR. DOOM!

:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Ain't catharsis grand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

You know what really grinds my gears?

Trevor's underpants.

That is just wrong.  Hopefully those people that do that will laugh so hard and then turn around and walk into the wall/pole or window and break their noses and be very very very embarrassed.

People are dumb some times.

Later,

John

On the opposite hand, I first met my wife when she opened a door for me while I was carrying a big box containing a printer.

You never know what friendships will grow out of simply being nice or courteous to someone.  I often tell my daughter, "Being nice to someone is NEVER the wrong thing to do."  No matter who they are or what they have done...

Back to cathartic griping...

What a great thread!

Flck, you and I will probably never agree completely, but I respect your tone and your passion.  I DO agree - it is no part of the State's business to be teaching Sunday School to our kids.  However, by the same token, I think it is equally mistaken to completely leave out the enormous impact that Christianity has had on Western Civilization - in history, culture, music, and so much more.  Maybe there can be a happy medium we could agree on somewhere.

Lester - You and I disagree a lot, but I think you hit on something important here.  Karma.

3MNKids . . . I think religion is just inherently divisive.  Even Jesus warned that his teachings would divide families and societies.  But,  hey, at least MOST Christians don't cut the heads off those who convert away from their faith!  So it could be worse.  If verbal disagreement on a Bad Movie forum is the height of our religious controversy, we're better off than much of the world!

That's a BIG maybe; much more has happened in the last 60 years than merely the end to prayer in American schools; don't forget that we live in an era often referred to as The Information Age.  Knowledge always leads to questions and doubt. 

You're not sharing your faith, but your politics. I believe prayer does not belong in schools, as faith is a personal concern and not everyone in the USA believes in the Christ. 

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

They may grind your gears but they foul my cheeks.  :twirl: :buggedout: :wink:

AHD - Just so you know, I do not believe in teacher or administrator-led prayers in PUBLIC schools.  But I do believe students should be allowed the opportunity to have prayer time that is student led and initiated, as long as it does not interfere with instructional time. 
And I believe that, given Christianity's enormous influence in every area of Western History, that it is all too frequently regarded as a taboo topic in many public school classrooms.  Teaching religion is one thing; teaching about religion is another.

Some of my political stands (although not all of them) are strongly entwined with my religious beliefs, so when I talk about one, the other is going to come up.  It is still a way to share faith, when I talk about faith-based convictions.

If we are going to honor the establishment clause, we must also honor the free exercise clause.

THIS! This kind of thing grinds my gears: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

They obviously have NO idea of what they are talking about!  Equestrian sports are *easier* that Table Tennis, Golf or Cheerleading?  Oh yeah?  That's ridiculous.

I'm so mad I could spit.

Is Cheerleading even a sport?

It's always funny to read stuff like that...they build into the criteria bias that favors what they want to be ranked high.  And, even at that, misjudge those activities they don't understand (or have never themselves participated).

Don't ever tell a cheerleader that what they do is not a sport!! You'll get an earful!

Our cheer squad had some Tshirts made a couple years back that said:  "Athletes lift weights.  Cheerleaders lift athletes!"

:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

People who put Fart cans on their cars/trucks. all it does makes the cars sound like the car had some spicy burritos for lunch.

Here is where reason enters in. The term "school prayer" typically refers to organized prayer in schools, to which I am vehemently opposed and for which there is a reasonable basis for arguing against it's constitutionality. "Free exercise" is another matter. The courts have pretty consistently ruled that a student's religious expression through prayer cannot be abridged unless it can be shown to cause significant disruption in school. So, while not perfectly enforced (what right ever has been?), student by and large already enjoy free exercise. So what's the problem? Certainly far left notions of removing free exercise is equally unconstitutional. I would never support that either.

I don't deny that Christianity has been part of the fabric of the American people all along. It just happens to be what people were practicing. That is completely irrelevant to the constitution and to freedom. The people were fleeing Europe to escape the kinds of things the 1st amendment protects. If the religious right were content with the fact that they have free exercise, the school prayer issue would not be the hot-button topic it is. In reality, however, religious zealots have tried to indoctrinate and influence through publicly provided services for some time, and that's what people really object to, as they should.

I know some of your political beliefs are entwined with your religious beliefs, and that's your business. It becomes my business when elected officials charged with the task of upholding the constitution start making public policy decisions based on their religious beliefs, or institutions pressuring me to recite something I'm uncomfortable with. When I joined the military, I took an oath. I was in a room with about 30 others, swearing to defend this country. The rather hardcore Marine running the ceremony recited the oath before having us take it, and had a rather pronounced hardon about the ending "so help me, God." He asked if anyone had a problem with saying it, with a pretty obvious inflection that anyone who did was probably a Godless commie pinko. I was kind of uncomfortable with it, but I felt the intimidation and went along. During the oath the man made such a big deal about emphasizing "so help me, God" at the end to the point of almost shouting it. This kind of thing p**ses me off to no end. I resent the notion that my oath of service would mean less if I did not reference God in it. Personally I think my oath means more if I'm pledging myself and not using God as my excuse or justification, but that's open to opinion and I won't hold anyone's against them.

Okay, I got myself worked up. Sorry.

I don't deny that cheerleading is very demanding and requires great skill...especially today's cheerleaders that are essentially dancers/gymnasts.

But requiring skill and physical ability does not, by itself, make something a "sport."  Indeed, the label 'sport' is taken as a negative in quite a few physical activities (such as rock climbing, sailing, back packing, etc).  In these areas, those doing as sport are often viewed as lacking is the "real spirit."

In any case, no insult was intended...just wondering about that compiled list...

True.   :teddyr: 

Back to OT...

Mooches.. People who mooch off of other people all.the.time... I'm not a convenience store, ya know. I have a neighbor who tells everyone she quit smoking. No, she didn't! she just quit buying them. she mooches them from me.   :hatred: 

That's one of the more extreme cases of trying to use causation in place of correlation I've seen.  Why not just say the the Civil Right's Movement caused the drop in public school performance?  I think that's more likely, and the timeline lines up better.  A LOT of things happened in the late 50s into the 70s.  Single biggest cause, I believe, is the Cold War dying down.  Made education less of a priority, and funding fell dramatically.

A small note: teen pregnancy rates a couple years ago were lower than at any point in recorded American history (though to be fair, in the earliest recorded years, many of these teen mothers were in stable marriages).  To make another correlation, this drop in teen pregnancy rates (from the early 90s to the late 2000ss) coincides with a drop in the number of people who self-identify as Christian.  



I can't speak for all public school education, but they did teach us about this in the public schools I attended.  We learned the beginning of Christian history in mythology class (with a rather thorough explanation of what "mythology" actually means), actually.  The historical influence in world history classes (though I have to say, our world history classes were far too brief and didn't cover enough to really be about the "world").  



I'm not sure what your problem with the current situation is then...?  We had prayer groups at my middle and high school (completely student led and run), and I know many schools have those groups where people pray around the flag pole or other location.  As long as it isn't involved with administration/teachers and doesn't disrupt classes, it's allowed in a public school in the USA.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm)



Now...  As far as what grinds my gears...  

Something not too serious...  All the people in my area who don't understand, in the slightest, the right of way rules of the roads.  It's mind boggling to me, and it is worse in county I live in than most of the surrounding ones.  Another thing that irritates me: rust on guns.  My Nagant is developing a big rust spot.   :hatred:

More seriously: most historical deniers.  ESPECIALLY Holocaust and Japanese atrocity deniers.  Holocaust deniers, almost universally, are just simply awful people.  It goes way beyond just "I question this evidence", and is more like, "I hate Jews and enjoy watching and thinking about people suffering".  

The world would be a better place if they were no longer a part of it.  

P(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h288/Indianasmith/IndysThirdAlbum/IMG_1950.jpg)

When my boat doesn't start . . .


Also, people who feel they have to come to a COMPLETE STOP and then think about it before making a simple turn . . . I'm not talking across traffic . . . . I mean, a simple, uncomplicated right hand turn.  WHAT IS THERE TO THINK ABOUT??????

We have a small, simple supper, and afterwards, every pot, pan, dish, saucer, glass and piece of silverware in the entire house is piled up in the sink.  Somebody apparently had oatmeal for breakfast, because it's spilled all over the kitchen floor and halfway into the dining room.  Go over to the kitchen counter and there's gobs of applesauce - looks like somebody sneezed on it really bad - and then there's some other unknown sticky substance that's been there all day.  Coffee spots all over the counter top for 3' in every direction from the coffeemaker. 

:hatred:

My wife turns into the SHE-HULK if I leave a dirty spoon in the sink . . . this would drive her over the edge.

Sounds like your stereotypical single-men's flophouse.

Jack ~ you're describing my flat: when did you move in?  :question: :wink:

This morning I see all the countertops are immaculately clean.  Maybe my little blow-up yesterday accomplished something (yeah, right) :teddyr:  Everybody's describing me as "snippy", but it's a small price to pay.

When people lie about things to look cool in group. And I can always tell when someone is lieing for some reason.

I simply can't fathom either how we fill a dishwasher EVERY F'N DAY in my house.  That and the laundry basket.  

Another one for me that I just recalled because of our new addition to the family.  I can't stand it when people either...

A.) Touch my kids without permission
B.) Leer their dirty mugs into their carriers and stare at them 5 inches away.

Especially if they are someone I have never met before.  These people are usually the most careless mother f*ckers too and would probably end up sneezing on them if I didn't shoo them away.  I swear I'm still going to buy the shirt "What the f*ck are you looking at" for the baby.  

[/quote]
I swear I'm still going to buy the shirt "What the f*ck are you looking at" for the baby.  
[/quote]

If you do, you must post a picture.

Odd you should mention that as David Wong talks about the same thing on this Cracked article we wrote Seven Commandments All Video Games Should Obey.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_the-7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_the-7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey.html)

One of the big things he mentions is how, despite being better in terms of hardware, the PS3 and Xbox still sell way less than the Wii, because, as he so brilliantly puts it, "Better graphics do not equal innovation and/or creativity."

Anyway, it's a good article.  :)

What grinds my gears is those douchebags who travel around in their cars with the windows down, blaring their music so damn loud that people from over two blocks away can hear it.  Especially when they got those annoying at f**k amped up bass speakers so  you feel the vibration coursing through your veins with each beat.

It's like, "Hey, Jackass, why not try putting the speakers on the INSIDE of your car!"

Also not a big fan of those guys who drive loud cars and bikes.  They insist on each stop they've got to let their vehicles "roar" several times.  If there's anyone on here who does that, let me speak for everyone else when I say, "You are NOT impressing anyone!  Now get a f**king muffler!"

I don't like people who have (or often think they have) a car fancy enough to park diagonally taking up two parking spaces.  Kind of makes me want to key their car but I don't. 

You see that quite a lot in Pretoria shopping malls, especially here www.menlynpark.co.za (http://www.menlynpark.co.za) ~ it's usually drivers of Lexuses (or should that be Lexi?  :twirl:) or 4x4s who park like that. Just btw: the Lexus costs over 500 000 SA rand ~ you could buy a small house for that here.

Hmm.  Nice to see the church and state stuff die out.  I mean, that's just a bad run in the Cerberus comics to me.  =)

To the thread at hand:

1.  People who wave a laser pointer at the screen during a movie in the theatre.
2.  People whose cell phones ring during a movie in the theatre.
3.  People whose cell phones ring, and who answer said phones while doing a transaction such as buying meds at the pharmacy -- and then act annoyed that the pharmacist doesn't wish to be part of two simultaneous conversations!  (yes, I saw this)

4.   People who yap on cell phones while driving.  Yes, hands free, even.  You know they aren't paying attention either.

5.   Kids running amok in public don't bother me.  Their parents do.

6.   Bullies.

7.   Patients who try to treat doctors like medication and test vending machines!

8.   Pat Robertson.

9.   People who use facebook as though it were twitter.  (posting status updates that say "eggs for breakfast!" and crap like that.)

10.  Pretty much anyone who is not a teenager anymore who acts like an eternal adolescent.

I just love those guys with Harleys and drag pipes.  You can hear them for about 1/2 mile in every direction, and they never miss the opportunity to accelerate hard up our street.  Or up the highway, you can hear them just as well from there.

Every time Jack injures himself with a powertool he whines about it.  Its starting to get to me.   :bouncegiggle:

Ok another serious one for me.  Cars in general.  I really think its one of the greatest inventions ever however, the upkeep on a car is just way too much.  Oil changes, parts problems, etc cost thousands of dollars and hours of time wasted in a waiting rooms for a car's lifespan.  I'd honestly argue you some people end up spending more than what they paid for it in this area.  Plus the "B" of it all is cars nowadays seem to have god*mn sensors for EVERYTHING and the only time it sends off a light is when the sensor is broken!  And it costs hundreds of dollars to replace!!!  ARRRRRRRGGGGGG!!!  Sorry, that seems like a damn racket to me.  Plus the cars are getting so complex with their wiring, the common layman has no choice but wheel it into the mechanics for services they used to do themselves.

 I really hope in my lifetime they explore the telepod method of travel minus the hideous fly/human side effects Seth Brundle faced. 

I'm sorry.  :bluesad:

I'm sorry too, Newt: even at the ripe old age of 42 years standing, tottering around and falling over  :wink: I can't resist going on a slide or swing or doing things that the younglings do.

A case in point: I was with friends in Cape Town and their kids were playing on the slides and swings, so I hauled my big bum up there and did what they did. My young friend's mom saw me there and called to her daughter, saying "Look there! Uncle Trevor's on the slide!" Her daughter looked at me and then at her mom. She shrugged and said: "So? He's on the slide?"  :question: :teddyr:

No, no... I don't mean people who play on playgrounds or other kids stuff.

I mean people who act very immaturely, who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them.  You know what I mean.   People who do stupid things, then reap the consequences -- and then turn around and complain that the world is out to get them, that it's all bulls**t and so unfair.  That failure to own up to one's own responsibility is the crux of what annoys me.

They do that on PURPOSE!?  I always felt bad for those people because I thought their cars were all messed up.  Man!  I hate them too then!

well, Motorcycles have a reason- when they're on the highway, the need to have a loud sound to alert other drivers of their attendance. Cars, though, there is no reason, other than to make you look like a person with too much money and too much time on their hands.

Once again, South Park nails it.  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMLZXA8LJY&feature=related

You know who really grinds my gears?

Two despicable words: Perez Hilton.

'Nuff said.

Being a household of 5 and having a house with only 1 bathroom   :lookingup:

Maybe we could lock him (shim???) into an elevator with Paris Hilton for all eternity.

An online user called Fai on one of the sites I go to.

Let me explain.  I go to a site called My Anime List every week to see everyone's reaction to the lastest chapter in some of the series I read.  One of them is Naruto, which I find average and is a big guilty pleasure nowadays.  There is one person, however, that is driving me insane though.  He also comments on the latest chapter, he always starts the topic for the chapter, and he even makes the polling.  What gets me is that he goes out of his way to bash the story without even really talking about why it is bad.  Hell, I'm not even sure he is even reading the chapters from how badly he describes and complains about them.

He also goes out of way to insult everyone who likes the manga and even sets up the polls to say you're an idiot for saying a chapter is even remotely good. I mean, look at this from Chapter 497:

5 out of 5: Don't mind me, Ima fantarding (His way of saying you are a retard) nao.
4 out of 5: In denial I am

But besides all of this, the thing that ultimately blows my mind about this guy... he has been doing this since July of last year!!!!  If he f*****g hates this manga so much (Which he does), why is he constantly on its board talking about it and even still reading it?!  AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

Addendum:

Middle aged women who dress like teenagers when they REALLY should not be doing so (for a variety of reasons).  By this, I mean dressing in ways the teenagers should not be dressing either.   :wink:


Saw a LOT of this back when working in Law Enforcement.  People in their 40's and 50's doing stuff, getting busted, then spending five figures on a lawyer to get out of it with excuses like it was all OUR fault (for being "the man" I guess).

A few years ago, my nephew got arrested for DUI.  His family went nuts, hiring lawyers for him and all kinds of crap.  I asked him "did you DO it?"  He said, "yes."  I told him then to stand up to the judge, tell him "yes sir, I did it" and take to take his punishment like a man.  Ultimately, that's what he did...he paid his price and got on with his life.

I've got more respect for him (with his OMG-He got a DUI "past") for owning his actions than all those folks that were trying to get him out of it.

A guy named Bill McCamis on one of the artifact boards I belong to.  The biggest, rudest jerk I have ever met in my 12 years online.  Everyone who disagrees with him on ANY topic, archeological or political, is either an idiot or a hypocrite or both.  Some of the most mild-mannered artifact collectors I ever met would like nothing better than to kick his a$$ on sight, myself included.  What a nasty, petty, evil little man! :hatred:

I agree that if you get caught breaking the law it’s rather silly to blame law enforcement, they’re just doing their job. However, I used to play poker with a bunch of cops at their FOP hall, and I got along with and liked the majority of them immensely. However, I was witness to several instances in which one of them would leave the card game and were clearly over the limit, get in their vehicle and drive off. What are the odds they would suffer the consequences if pulled over? I sure hope cops keep doing their jobs and keeping drunks off the road, but based on my experience if any one of them wants to be judgmental about driving over the limit they can smooch my d**k. They're not held to the same standards of consequence.

If I were to ask for a show of hands from the number of people who have run a red light, or broken the speed limit and were never seen or caught, I’m confident that would be just about everyone here. If I were to ask how many have ever driven a vehicle while over the legal limit but made it home without getting pulled over, the number would probably not be as high, but I’m sure there would be a good amount. Now, if I were to ask the same people who raised their hands if they turned themselves in or sought punishment for their infractions how many hands would raise? I’d be surprised if there were a single one. How about if you were pulled over while over the limit and given the opportunity to escape the consequences? Would you turn it down? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

All that said, yeah, if I were ever caught over the legal limit, I certainly would own up to it, and I certainly wouldn’t blame the cops for doing their job. That’s ridiculous.

FWIW, where I worked, they DID suffer the same consequences if pulled over.  During the years I worked there, we had several get caught for DUI...and they lost their jobs and stood before the judge just like everyone else.

I guess it varies depending on the jurisdiction. That wasn't the case in my example, that's for sure. I won't be specific, but it was somewhere around the middle east coast. I still respected their jobs as law enforcers, but that bit that I witnessed always bothered me. I will say, however, that playing cards with them did get me out of a speeding ticket once. I was driving about 15 over on the highway and got pulled over in that jurisdiction. I asked the officer if he knew "so-and-so" and "what's-his-name" and he asked how I knew them and I said I played cards with them at the FOP lodge over on "such-and-such" road and he said "slow down and have a nice day."

Reminds me of a lot of the people on the boards of popular films on the imdb.

It's a minor thing, but I hate it when guests at the hotel I work at get annoyed at me when I call them for their wake up calls.  I mean, "Hey, Jackass, you ordered the wake up!  So don't get p**sed at me when I actually do what you wanted!"

Another good one.. idiot customers.

For a couple of years I had this work at home job where I took phone calls from HSN (Home Shopping Network.)  Basically I'd sign up for various hours, and, when my shift came, I'd log into my computer, and they would forward calls to my phone.  Most of them weren't too bad.  I especially loved the sweet old ladies who'd call and be all polite like, place their orders, ask some questions, gush about how much they loved the products and then thank for me their help.  Real grandmotherly types.

Then there were some of the other people.

Lots of rude pricks call these numbers (course, maybe I'm suffering from a bit class envy here, but I'm guessing there's a bit of rudeness in anyone that'll spend hundreds of dollars on s**t that has no purpose other than to look nice one your finger or neck).  One of the types I REALLY hated where the people who'd call and act like I was interrupting their schedule.  They'd be like, "Can we speed this up, please?"  in a real nasty tone of voice.  To this, I would think, "Oh, gee, I'm sorry, am I inconveniencing you?  If you're in a hurry, why the f**k did you call now?"

Seriously, why the hell would you call someone and then act like they're the ones that are holding you up from whatever mindless s**t you want to get back to?

Then there's the, "I'm ordering for someone nearby" people.  You know, they'd call, and after every question I'd ask regarding their order, they would yell the question to someone else standing in the room, get the answer, and then tell me what they said.  I'm like, "Why do you just hand the phone over to the OTHER person?!?"  

And again, I can't ask these simple logical questions directly to the customer because that might be considered rude.  Instead I'm suppose to just keep up the polite front and resist my natural impulse to call these people dumbasses and hang up on them.

Finally, there's the penny pinchers.  These are the people you get who make an order, you go through all the steps, get all their info, get right to sale, give them the total and then WHAT?!?  It's HOW much?  They find out the tax and/or shipping, and they'll like, "Well, just cancel the order."  I had one lady was ordering a necklace for about $120 or so dollars and the she canceled the order when she found out she had to pay like five bucks for tax.  It's like, you're willing to spend over a HUNDRED dollars on a stupid necklace, but you bulk at paying a few extra bucks in taxes?!?  

Hmm.  Work ones are good. 

I work in a library.  People who are loud in the library irritate me.  It also irritates me that libraries are now trying to become social meccas for people to get free internet rather than sources of learning.  I know people learn on the internet, but it just isn't the same.  I miss the time when libraries were quiet and the librarians would yell at you if you made noise. 

Now they are places to drop kids off for cheap entertainment, a place to get movies for free, a place to sit in the middle of the aisle and read while blocking traffic, and a place to talk loudly on the phone.

They were probably the closest thing to a shrine I went to as a child, and I feel like they've been desecrated.

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

I also deal with clients everyday and most of them are 100% OK ~ you do get the odd one who almost spoils your day. I had a client who was asking about some SA films of the 1960s on DVD and so I sent him the list of the current releases, on which most of his films were covered.

This jackass then emailed me back and thanked me for "rescuing the films from oblivion" as though the Film Archives hadn't preserved the things at all!  :hatred:

Xanadu, IT IS VERY HORRIBLE and I barely survived it and it has put mental scars on me, Monster A Go Go didn't, Red Zone Cuba didn't, Pocket Ninjas didn't, but the only other two were Super Babies 1 & 2.

You know what has recently been grinding my gears? People, and they generally tend to be of the 60 years plus age, who watch television and, whether it's a show or a movie or even a freaking commercial, have to, every 15 minutes, say: "hey isn't that the guy from that movie?" Or something similar. And they're almost never right. Sometimes they're not even close. What is it about older generations? Am I going to have the same thing happen to me when I reach 60? Does everything just start to melt together and if someone has, say red hair, I'm going to start asking if they're any number of other actros with red hair?

Good God.

Thank you for bringing this up and bless you sir for dealing with these A-Holes.  I honestly couldn't have said my feelings on this issue better than you have. The scumbags across the street from me (definition of "white trash" btw) do this sh!t all the time!  Every damn time I go into the local library, their kids (who are failiing every subject known to man) are in there screwing around on the computer playing games and not doing a thing to enhance their knowledge. Granted I'm not going to claim that I use a library computer for knowledge ALL the time.  Still, at least I don't eat up someone else's valuable computer time for several hours a week.  Yes...its an every day thing with these jerks and theres more like them I curse whenever I go into public libraries.  They are ALWAYS the most disruptive losers in the place and should get kicked out.  I think the librarians have a soft spot for them because they are ratty looking.

Man you struck a chord... :teddyr:  I respect public libraries simply because I feel there is no knowledge that is not power. 

I have to give you a big  :teddyr: for that, DS: I'm trained as a librarian and getting those organizational skills stands me in good stead to this day. I'm typing this in my office which is also the Film Archives' library ~ it is the neatest and quietest place in this place. :thumbup:

Last time I was in the library, it looked like somebody was running their Ebay business on one of the computers there  :lookingup:

Everytime I go to listen to metal on Youtube, there is always a f**king Justin Beiber comment. He who shall not be named is the Faggot of Earth!

You know what I can't friggin' stand? "Gangsta" Kids.

I am so freaking sick and tired of hearing these lowlifes talk at the bus stop about how cool they are, how they're gonna be the next best next thing and how "awesome" the ghetto is.

Most of all, their free-style rapping drives me insane. Every one I've heard all sounds the same. It's always about killing cops/homosexuals/other "gangsta", money and raping women.

I hate to sound like an a***ole, but these unintelligent people need to be exterminated.

What about Nerdcore Rap, they rap about using proper grammar and Star Wars?

You know what really grinds my gears?

I've brought this topic up before. People who already know that they're not going to like a movie, all the signs are there, the writing is on the wall, yet they go to the theatre, buy the ticket, and see it anyway. This is doubly so for crappy Hollywood hack remakes. The rats just scramble for the feeder bar whenever a remake comes out. They practically announce it: "Oh, why did they remake this? This is going to terrible." Next week they're writing a review about how we should save our money.

So I went to apply for a position at my schools bookstore which has the duration of 5-weeks. What you did is you filled out an application and signed your name to a sheet, and waited with other students until your name was called. Then you'd be taken aside and be interviewed for three minuets while they skim your application. I was asked really dumb questions, and felt it was an insult to my intelligence. Yes, I have over four years retail experience you can find that out looking at my stupid application for this job that lasts only 5 weeks, why even ask. And they asked what I felt would be an inappropriate reason for being late and what was the hardest thing I encountered at an other job-- seriously!
I have a 3.99 GPA in Economics I can do better. I don't really care if even get the stupid job. It's only good for beer money anyways. My goal is  to work somewhere for 4 months so I can pay off a sizable chunk to Sally Mae when I leave school.
Gee, I sure hope with my education and four years retail experience I'm qualified to work there for 5 weeks... holy 5h17! If I'm not then I wonder who is!

You know, I just get tired of crap where you're just treated like a moron and herded like cattle because your young and a college student. It's like that all over my campus, you try to talk to anyone at customer service desks there, they cut you off, then refer you to another department who can't answer your question, then they refer you back to the same idiot. If you can't deal with my concern then let me go, quit wasting my time and making myself and others feel like cattle.

I'm on an anti-anxiety medication, and I have to go in for an annual physical to make sure that I'm in good enough health to continue taking my medication.  What a f****** scam.  I'm 45 years old and in perfect health.  The damned pills are expensive enough, but hey, let's soak our patient profit center for double that cost by making them come in for a totally unnecessary checkup each year.  Then they screwed up the freakin' prescription of course - there's 90 days worth of pills in a bottle, so I should get one bottle that's good for three refills in order to have a year's worth, but no - they give me a bottle that's only good for two refills.  So now I've gotta get that BS straightened out.

For the love of Christ, this town is full of 85 year old zombies driving around in two ton automobiles - takes them three minutes just to hobble 50 feet but let's give them access to death machines.  But they only have to go in for an eye test once every 4 years.  

Oh, and while I'm ranting - stinkin' router was screwing up completely.  So I disconnected and uninstalled it.  Then I find out my modem is all screwy - it resets itself a couple times a day, and if the computer is turned on - which it is 24/7 - it never manages to reboot.  I had to turn the computer off and then unplug the modem, plug it back in, and wait an hour for it to finally reboot.  Of course the phone runs through the modem, so if I didn't notice that it reset itself and was unable to reboot, we wouldn't have phone service until I did all that crap.  So I took the thing into the cable company yesterday to exchange it, spent and hour standing there on hold while they had me call up their home office.   :lookingup:  So they won't exchange it, I have to have a guy come out to the house and replace it.  And now of course the damned thing is working perfectly.  Arrrggghhh.  A junk router hooked up to a junk modem;  gosh, no wonder I couldn't figure out what was wrong.

Not to ruin your rant, Jack, but it's common (ie, standard of practice) to see people yearly for *any* prescribed medication.  More often, typically, if the prescription has any addiction potential as some but not all anxiety rx do.    I'm included in that -- I have to go see my doctor yearly for an albuterol inhaler that I use only before exercise.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Patients who treat me like I'm a prescription vending machine.    :teddyr:

That's a valid point. I just tested just a tad under normal on testosterone levels, so it's likely they're going to put me on some sort of replacement therapy. I fully expect to be evaluated once a year or more for that kind of thing. My best advice would be to get used to yearly doctor visits.

Smart ass children. After getting onto my oldest boy about his mouth he said... maybe I have tourettes.  :lookingup:

I hope you sternly addressed to comment for the sake of proper discipline and then in secret acknowledged how awesome that was.  :bouncegiggle:

Oh I'd be astonished if it wasn't a common practice.  As far as addiction, it took doctors 9 years to diagnose my anxiety disorder, but I guess I should assume that they're a lot better at spotting addictions. 

My car is such a piece of crap, it gets stuck between 1st and 2nd all the time! It really p**ses me off!

 Although he can be funny sometimes if he wasn't "on" all the time with his little quips I might be more forgiving.  We went to a burger joint that brings the food to the table in little baskets and as soon as the girl put his down he grabbed it, looked at her, and said in a very creepy voice.. it puts the lotion in the basket.. She didn't know what to think and we were laughing our asses off.  :teddyr:

One thing that bugs me is people who always have all the lights on in the middle of the day.  They're not needed.  Just open the shades or drapes.  Sunlight is more natural than the harsh light of a 100 watt bulb.
A friend of mine is terrible about it.  I'll go over there at 1:00 in the afternoon and every light in the house is on.
And he wonders why his electric bill is so high.

get the transmittion replaced.

I was being ironic.

You know, if I said that, my mom would have gotten smart back and said, "Well, maybe I'm going to develop tourettes of the hand and smack you uncontrollably with it!"

This would be my ideal family.

Irresponsible people... My niece, who I haven't seen or spoken too in 4 years, gave my number as a contact and now lawyers are calling me because they have filed some kind of civil suit against her.

I just got off the phone with them and told them I don't know her number, where she lives, or what the hell this is about, stop calling me!  :hatred:  Im sooo p**sed. 

You know what really grinds my gears?

Zombie debt collectors. No, that's not the title of a B-movie.

For those that don't know, zombie debt collectors are agencies that buy up old debt, including debt for which someone is not responsible for is out of the statute of limitations for collection. I was married before, and during the pending divorce my wonderful ex created debt for me in various ways, telephone accounts, hospital bills for her, lots of stuff. Every once in a while I'll get a zombie debt letter for something from years ago that I had no connection with other than it was some account she set up for herself and because we weren't divorced yet, it fell on me as well. Most of it is stuff that I have absolutely no financial liability for, but they don't care. They do stuff like make threatening phone calls, threaten legal action, etc. I always tell them the same thing. Good luck, buddy. Your legal action carries absolutely no weight, and I will take legal action against you if this affects my credit. They never do anything about it except continue to make threats and try to intimidate me. f**king losers.

wow Fick good point!!!

I'm getting angry with my old student loan. Originally I was told I have to pay 50 dollars a month (in the mid 1990's) and thought it was ok, then I got a job after graduation... only making 11 dollars an hour...  in debt up to my eyeballs and the student loan people wanted me to pay 100 dollars a month :hatred:

I paid as much as I can and stopped, then I got back into paying my student loan again this time they want 150 dollars!!! (and I'm currently making a crappy 15.00) GEE I HATE MY LUCK AND PAY!!!

So I missed a few payments and the student loan are calling like ever 30 mins... GEE...

I talk to those people about a reduced payment plan (which they agree) and the JERKS ARE STILL CALLING ME!!!

wow, its like Illinois really need my money! What is there problem!

PS... I really hate Rod Blagojevich and I hope he rots in JAIL!

Flick: you might try writing a letter like the one on this page (http://www.dianedrain.com/Bankruptcy/BankruptcyArticles/Articles/HowToHandleHarassingCreditors/BKHarassingCreditorsArticle.htm).  If it's not a legitimate debt and they continue to contact you, you can sue them.  Also check out this page (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs27-debtcoll.htm).

Skull: Student loans (especially Federal student loans) are treated under different rules.  You may have less recourse.     

This is not legal advice, just information you can find through an Internet search.

Rev Powell: What's recourse?

Well, obviously you weren't raised by the same woman I was...

"Something or someone turned to for assistance or security," legally speaking, we usually mean the courts or a statute.

Can't Skull refinance?

Yeah I'm totally not looking forward to paying off my loans... there really was no other way for me to go to school.
I hope I can do that thing where I start off with small payments and make higher payments as I make more money, and if you totally just can't get ahead after 20 years it's forgiven.

I haven't even started paying off my loans, and I graduated almost three years ago.  Despite having a degree, I'm still working a part time minimum wage job.  Every job in my field (IT, if you're curious) seems to want years of experience and me to be familiar with all kinds of programs that a) weren't taught in my college and b) would cost me hundreds of dollars to buy (not to mention the new computer I'd probably need to run them.)

(sigh)

It's depressing to think about.  I wish I could go back in time and get a different degree.

On the bright side though, compared to many graduates, I don't owe too much (even though it's quite a bit of change for me).  Been thinking of getting another loan trying to take some more university courses (tried to get a loan with the local community college, but financial aid rejected me.)  Granted, that'll put me further in debt, but I've always been a "in for a penny, in for a pound" kind of fellow.  

:)

debt = BAAAAAAADDDDD.  Debt REALLY grinds my gears.  So does underemployment.

Think about it this way:  Right now, you have a degree but no experience in your field, and some debt.  Let's say you keep your min wage job during school, so you don't lose THAT income.

At the end of this second degree program, you will have:  Two degrees with no experience in either field and BIGGER DEBT.

There is a TON of people out there (more than that, actually,  :wink: ) out of work, looking for jobs and quite a few of them have 5, 10 or even 20 years of experience.  Do you really think that another degree and bigger debt is the answer out of your hole?

UNLESS...you are talking about a degree from some sort of community college type vocational school...THEN I might give your idea some credence.  Those schools are more like JOB TRAINING, which I think would be FAR more valuable than a four year degree (which I assumed you meant); four year degrees are more 'philosophical' than practical.

Auto mechanics, welding, those types of things, or if you really want to increase your odds of getting a job in the two years it takes to finish the program...something in the medical field (transcriptionists are always needed, med techs in various jobs, nursing, etc..ALWAYS in demand).   Some of these jobs pay better than others, of course, but most are significantly above min. wage.

Anyway, research what jobs are available in your area and go after something there.

Go to a temp agency and work part-time temp work to get EXPERIENCE in your field?

lol...

I just wanted to vent about my student loan. I wish I could pay it off but it's been difficult lately since I havent gotten a raise in 2 years and everything is starting to cost more. And currently looking for a new job is quite difficult when I've seen other companies simular to mine turned into a skeleton crew to survive.

yes... Im pointing my finger at Obama.

I didnt like Obama because I know he's ideas sucked... but I didnt expect to see him and the democraps would try to turn the USA into the USSR over night. wow talk about a reality shift... most of the 'legal' aliens are comming to the USA to get away from the kings and dictators and we are now heading towards that direction.

I didn't want to give the impression I was whining about debt in general. I was not advocating weaseling out of legitimate debt that you owe. If you owe money, you should pay it. I was just ranting on the loser zombie debt collectors whose sole purpose is to collect debt, alot of which is bogus, and harass people. Talk about a soleless existence. I don't care how out of work I was, I would never work for such an industry.

I don't like the idea of a double major because it seem like you won't be able to focus in one area of study, like you lose knowledge of from both areas of study simply because the human brain can only hold so much knowledge, and what if you find a job and have a career that only relates to one degree, then you wasted time learning the other discipline.


Well trades across the board are suffering cutbacks. I'm skeptical on the medical field because so many people are going into it. Then there's also all this talk on medical reform, something thats only going to occur 4 years from now... what's to say those reforms are going to be overturned. If the reform stays, it sucks for all parties involved, and I just foresee less people in the profession being employed because of it-- people with the larger incomes will pay more, and are not going to go through as many rigorous tests and procedures.

I'm actually considering joining the military, maybe they can use my skills somewhere, and I can meet people who have connections, so I wont be so much on the outside.


Ironically I'm thinking about joining the military, but I think his idea of pumping more money to the states to keep government worker jobs is the worst way to create jobs. He's gonna put us more into debt, and kill some of the tax bases. Police and teachers have an easier time getting their jobs back more than anybody else. Why the hell doesn't this administration cut taxes on employers for hiring people. If debt is going to become 90% of GDP in the coming years if we keep the way were going, then I'd say that we went farther than necessary with the stimulus.

lol... Agree... I feel bad that I still have this student loan but i'm trying to pay it off and I would like the government stop calling my house 3 to 9 times a day if I'm late on a payment.





The reason why new jobs are not forming or hiring currently is that there are too many *unknowns * in the works, the current Healthcare Law (The new taxes for the program that doesn’t start until 4 years later starts in January), the Bush tax cuts also ends in January [from my understand the taxes didn’t factor inflation, for example: people making 50,000 today would be treated in taxes as if they were making 50,000 in the year 2000. Which also includes a 55% death tax and a 50% reduction a tax return for each child.] And CAP & TAX is floating around (which may become law once the Democraps loose the election).

Currently real unemployment rate is somewhere at 26%… The government numbers don’t include those not looking for work (actually those that are off the unemployment benefits without finding work)

Oh… next year is going to be a fun year to watch… :)

 :bouncegiggle: You make me want to have a boy!

Maybe, if it opens up the door to another job, any job that pays more then I think it would, eventually be worth.  Plus the thing is, this degree turned out to not be quite what I thought it was, so I'm not even 100 percent sure I could be happy working a job in my degree if I could ever even find one. 

Besides, not really thinking of trying to get a second degree, but maybe just take some more courses that'll give me some more knowledge that might help me latch on to one of the part time jobs around here.  Had my eye on some Graphic Design and Digital editing courses...

Problem is, last time I tried to get a loan for the community college, (since I don't think I could pay it all up front right now) they turned me down (the financial committee, whoever they are, said it didn't make sense for someone with a degree to be taking community courses, and that I obviously "hadn't done enough" to try and find a job in my field.)  Now, university course, while more expensive, I'm pretty sure I could get a loan for..



The temp agencies here are pretty much worthless.  Most of what they have is just factory work, if that. 

Dammit, now I'm depressed again.

Why the hell are so many damned fees tacked on to buying tickets to just about any event?  Processing fees, service fees, fee fi fo fum fees...seriously, after they're done your ticket price shoots up 15 bucks.  I'm sorry, to me thats borderline god*mn extortion and these ticket companies should rot in hell. 

Leukemia really grinds my gears.

In the last 8 months or so, three people I know have been diagnosed with leukemia.

The two year old son of one our best friends is fighting his battle when most children his age worry only about what toy to play with.

A good friend, a retired Navy Vet, found out he has a very rare form.

One of my wife's best and longest time friends just found out recently that she also has a rare form, and one that can be quite aggressive.

It REALLY sucks when you hear from a friend and learn their time on earth may be measured in months, if they are lucky.

However, we are truly thankful that in the first two cases listed above, things are looking "okay" for the time being, and in the third, we are remaining hopeful that it is not as bad as the original prognosis.

Oh, man!  :(

I know cancer always sucks, but to me, cancer isn't something kids should be getting.

People who can't hold up their end of a conversation.  I keep talking to people online who initiate a conversation and then don't take the hint to, ya know, come up with their own topics to talk about.  EVER.

So, when she surrenders, she runs in the wrong direction! 

:wink:

My nephew, Cody, was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia when he was 2 1/2. He has gone through many years of hospitaliztions, tests, and treatments.  In remission now for a number of years, he is a healthy 10 year old.  Throughout his life, his parents have naturally been his biggest supporters, but even parents need a shoulder they can lean on. Have your friends check out a wonderful organization called the Sunshine Kids Foundation which is dedicated to children with cancer.   

Another thing I REALLY hate: frauds.  By that I mean, people who make their living cheating others.   I never really thought about it much until about ten years ago when I worked for some guy for about a month and  half and only got paid $100.00.  (And I'm talking full time work here.)  It's a long story, but basically, it breaks down to this: I had just moved to a new area and was living (once again) with my parents.  I was desperate for a job, and the guy who installed the carpet in our new house said he was looking for an assistant.  Said he'd pay $200 a week tax free, so my parents are all like, "Yeah, take this job, Mike!  And do your best."

Well, being young and naive, I took it, and basically he kept BSing for over a month and half.  I quit working for him, and, come to find out, he'd done this before to other assistants in the past.  When I confronted him, he tried to turn the situation where everything was fault, and that I almost had gotten him fired from his job, and all this other BS. 

I wanted to take his ass to small claims court, but I didn't even have the meager money to do that, and my parents (who had encouraged me to get the damn job in the first place) didn't want to loan me the money cause they worried he'd just file bankruptcy and get away with it. 

On the up note though, the guy got fired from his job just a few weeks later and is being sued by his former boss.

Ever since then, I've had a personal hatred for those who make their living by cheating and lying to others, whether it be the big corporate fat cats who were selling off their own company stock while telling everyone else below them things are fine, the lawyers who sue companies and people just to line their own pockets, not giving a damn who or what they hurt, all the way down to the guy on the street corner with the "Will work for food" sign who is, in actuality, just too damn lazy to get a job.  I hate them all.

This trailer is annoying me !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZtQ4-dJut8

Look how English they are ! They're just so English !!!
And she's sooooooooo American !
I'm sure comedy is just around the corner !

*sigh*
One cliche after another. I feel sick.

 :bluesad:

You know what drives me insane?

Metallica fans who say Jason Newsted is a horrible bassist just because he plays with a pick. Go on any video on youtube with Jason and I guarantee that stupid argument will show up at least ten times.

On the same topic, I've seen comments on bass cover videos of early Metallica material (i.e. 1983-1986) that attack the player just because they play with a pick instead of their fingers. Seriously, who the f*** cares if they use their fingers or not? Just because a bassist uses a pick does not mean that they are inferior musicians. Why can't these people get that through their thick skulls?

Guitar players who finger pick say the same thing about guitarists who use picks. Who cares? Doesn't the bassist from Alice in Chains use a pick too?

When liberals, especially our President and his entourage, start whining about "the financial hole Bush dug us."  The last Republican deficit, for FY 06, was in the neighborhood of 350 billion.  Way too much, OK?  I acknowledge that!  The Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal discipline, and they blew it.

But the Democrats have been writing the nation's budgets since FY 07.  In 3 1/2 years, our deficit has nearly quadrupled and our debt has more than doubled!  And their solution is SPEND MORE!!!!!  SPEND MORE, TAX MORE, REGULATE MORE is the only language Democrats understand.  Have you heard them propose a SINGLE solution that does NOT involve spending more money while making the government even bigger and more intrusive than it already is?

When are these MORONS going to understand that there IS NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND?
We can't afford free health care, we can't afford cap and trade, and we sure can't afford to tax and regulate our few remaining industries into oblivion, which seems to be their only solution to anything!

Our national debt is sitting at nearly 13 trillion dollars.  Can you visualize that number?  It is basically taking $100 bills and stacking them flat, one on top of the other, to a height of 92 miles!!!!!!!  And Congress keeps spending more, to the tune of several BILLION dollars A DAY!

So long, America, it was nice knowing you!

You clearly lean to the right. I don't trust either side. They've both demonstrated that they are more interested in expanding their own power base and fighting each other than they are about helping Americans and creating jobs. Take the immigration issue, for example. The Democrats keep saying "we need comprehensive immigration reform," but don't seem too interested in doing anything about the borders, where real and terrifying things are happening. The Republicans, on ther other hand, say "no immigration reform until the borders are secured," which is not going to happen anytime soon, and probably will never happen to a point that they are satisfied enough to support immigration reform that does have to happen. The actual solution is: THEY BOTH HAVE TO HAPPEN, AND THEY BOTH HAVE TO HAPPEN NOW! But no, the broken, idiotic two-party system we have in place will never let that happen, because they are far more interested in political posturing and expanding their political power-bases than in getting together and actually doing both, which both deperately need to be done. Shame on them both. They obviously don't care about the American people and absolute power has reared its ugly head.

My advice, my friend, is to dissolve your political leanings and, more importantly, dissolve your notions of liberal and conservative. Those two words mean nothing. An economic liberal is actually a person who supports laissez-faire capitalism, yet somehow our society has attributed the word to people who are far from supporters of the finest economic system in history. When you resort to the tired old "liberal" and "conservative" labels and notions, you've demonstrated that, at least to some degree, your opinions are provided for you and you naturally think less for yourself. You have the capacity to ignore the liberal/conservative trap. Most of us do. Exercise that capacity and be a true free-thinker.

Well, they're reducing the penalty for crack cocaine possession to put it more in line with regular cocaine.  That's going to reduce costs some $40 million a year.  It's a small step but a good one.  I think that's a change everyone who is thinking clearly can support.   :thumbup:  Personally, I think decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs would be a nearly universal good, and would save enormous amounts of money.

And I have heard them propose other stuff, just not anything that has enough votes to actually pass.  It's really difficult for them to pass much of anything.  I've heard several discuss reducing military spending, but of course, that can't pass.  But, obviously, if we truly can't afford health care and industry regulations, we certainly can't afford military spending per year in the 2/3s of a trillion dollar per year range.

The bottom line is that, I trust corporations more than I trust government, which isn't a whole lot.  I do not buy the idea that "liberal' and "conservative" have no meaning - I think they obviously do.  But what infuriates me is that I see politicians on BOTH sides of the isle tearing down 3000 years of civilization one brick at a time and not building a thing of lasting value to replace it!!!!

OH... how??? This is a silly logic that never makes sense. How doing something that is harmful can save money?

So why not change grand theft. Really why say in jail longer for stealing $250 dollars when we know $250 dollars couldnt buy anything today. So why not reduce the penality? (logic makes no sense? neither reducing the penality of possession)


We need the military otherwise we'll still be living in the 1800's actually its our military that is keeping the world connected. And without it it'll be chaos.

What really makes no sense is Government controlled healthcare and the freedom to posses Recreational drugs. [has anybody seen Demolition Man (1993)?]

flackbait


Non taken... (and I dont mean any offence to you.)


hehe everytime I hear somebody saying this I visualized those silver headed robots chasing Robert Duvall in [THX 1138 (1971)]

The fact is... the numbers are grossly wrong. 50,000 dollars is a lot of money. Prisoners should be getting steak dinners almost every day and it wouldnt come up to 50,000 dollars. the people in jail are getting crap food and are treated for healthcare when and if necessary. I'd bet it'll cost closer to 1,000 per prisoner in jail.

This is what annoys me about government they sure dont know how to spend money and they can make up any number if they like.


You cannot reward people for doing crime. And sending them home early is a reward.


Oh there is... effecient government, please.

Those don't exist anywhere is the world.  :teddyr:

I heard North Korea is pretty effecient, but its not really my cup of tea.

I love this thread.

It's already been somewhat stated, but it costs a lot of money to keep people in prison. 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3 (http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3)

There's a breakdown of the cost of the average California inmate.  It does vary state to state.  Keep in mind this is including the overhead costs like paying for guards and administrators and such.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/faq.html (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/faq.html)

Florida has it at more like $20k.



Ok.  Prove this.  I just provided a government website's statistics.  Do you have anything besides your claim and personal beliefs to back up this statement? 

Equally importantly, police cost money.  And courts, lawyers on both sides (public defenders), the whole nine yards.  These are other costs that would be saved.  Not to mention, if the police aren't forced to deal with petty drug crime, they can focus on other, more damaging crimes.



Well, I did specify small possession.  But even if this is so, if they're only in there for drug charges, what difference does it make?  If they're in there for OTHER charges as well, they'd stay in there. 

Ok. You live in a box. You get 3 meals a day. Lets say McDonalds. Morning 5 dollars. Lunch 5 dollars. Supper 5 dollars. that 15 dollars a day. 15 dollars times it by 365 days is... 5,475 dollars.

Heating, electrical and water is based upon the government controlled building. Assuming that is cost is 100 dollars a month each. Do you pay 100 dollars a month for each utility? Would you need to spend 100 dollars for each utility for a 20'x20' room? how about a 10'x10' cell... anyway that 3,600 dollars.

So If I add 5,475 and 3,600 I get 9,075 dollars.

Medical. the last time I went to the doctor was 2 years ago. When was your? did you spend 1000 dollars? Lets assume each convect get treated for medical do you actually think they are getting 1000 dollars worth of treatment?

Ok... here is the problem with my numbers...

1st... The prisons wish they get McDonalds so whatever the government is feeding them is SO DAMN EXPENSIVE AND IT MAY BE CHEAPER TO PICK-UP MCDONALDS.

2nd... there are 2 prisoners in the cell... so why in gods name does it cost 600 dollars a month in utilities to keep 2 prisoners in a 10x10 cell.

3rd... Healthcare is the question... Acually its unknown. So If I'd figure 9,000 dollars on each prisoner in general and the government is claiming 50,000 then they are saying each prisoner is getting 49,000 in healthcare treatment. Really???


If you going to tell me somebody has to pay the guards... Guards are needed. Even if you have 1000 or 10000 prisoners it doesnt change the fact that guards are needed.

But since we are talking about cost lest see how it works... for every 100 prisoners there should be 1 guard. lets say it cost each prisoner 100 dollars per month (I like round easy numbers) so each guard is getting so each guard is getting 10,000 per month. Really? how does that work. Ok... maybe there is 1 guard per 50 prisoners so each guard should get 5,000 per month (gee I wish I get 5,000 per month)... a prison guard salary from 2004 is $33,600 (http://www.job-hunt.org/careers/prison-guards.shtml) so if the prison guard is making 2, 800 a month and how many prisons do they watch?

Time to do some reverse math...

About 442,000 prison guards can be found working in the US in 2004 (source above) and 2,304,115 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)... so there is 1 guard per 5 prisoners (really now)... anyway lets assume its true then 2,800 is divided in 5 prisoners... is 560 per prisoner... adding the cost to 6,720 and the 10,000 = 16,720... still not even half way to 50,000.

Although I heard of stories that there is a 20 to 40 per 1 guard in a prison... (It's getting late for me to find this but I'm happy to say 1 guard per 5 prisoner because I know that a silly number and it still doesnt add to the 50,000 dollar cost.)

Actually if somebody was in prison (or guard) can you tell me how super fantastic my numbers really is?

Exotic pets that morons buy and realize too late they can’t take care of them and release them into the wild.  Thus, they end up screwing up a well established ecosystem.  For example, the Burmese python issue in Florida.  Personally, I don’t understand the point in acquiring a snake as a pet with the potential to grow over 10 feet long and shoving it into a small glass tank.  Well unless you work in a zoo.  If you can't take care of it, buy a god*mn hamster and be normal rebel.

 :teddyr: I think that applies very well to that guy in SA whose tiger went AWOL en route to the vet.  :buggedout:

Your entire post is a bunch of assumptions, and as far as I can tell your numbers are simply guesses.  This doesn't prove anything. 

But, that's not really important anyway, as your own numbers are still way higher than $1000 a person (you may note I linked to Florida's prison system, which quotes $20k per average prisoner at a state facility, and around $15k for a typical adult male prisoner), and even if it truly only cost, say, $1000 per person per year, that's still money that'd be saved if they WEREN'T there. 

So, as far as I can tell, you're basically ignoring my actual argument.  Which was that minor drug possession should be decriminalized, and that the removal of an entire category of crime would reduce costs to the legal system.

You are correct... But I've also show you the cost of living with "real" numbers.


lol... I also think my numbers is quite high. [and I'd came up with 16,000] If you factor $600 a month on utilities per cell and multiply prison with 500 cells... that's 300,000 per month on utilities...  :buggedout: 300,000!!! Do you think it cost 300,000 dollars per month for power, plumbing and heat?

Lets talk about food. Prisoners get crap food, I'd shown you McDonalds value meal prices. Do you think they food they are getting is better then McDonalds?

Like I'd said the numbers dont add up because they are made up. If you think I'm wrong then try to sit inside a small room for an hour and think about your limitations and try to figure that the government is paying 50,000 or 20,000 a year for your stay and figure where all the money is going. I bet you cant!


No... so what is minor drug possession? 1 once. 1/2 once. 1 pill. 100 pills 10000 pills. less then 100 dolars? what is minor... compaired to a drug dealer?

You either have drugs or not... nothing minor! You either are stealing money or not. You are either raping a person or not. you are doing a crime or not. drawing these lines like minor possesion is only rewarding the criminal for not doing more .

I'm not taking sides Skull, but one thing I'll say is that there is a distinct difference between someone who is in possession of a joint or someone who is in possession of a pound. The first person is likely simply a user, whereas the second person likely has intent to distribute. These are separate crimes. Whether you agree with decriminalizing drugs or not, are you saying that different crimes don't carry different severities? Different degrees of murder carry different degrees of punishment. Why should drug possession be any different? A user should get the same punishment as a dealer? That's like saying some poor schmoe who shoplifted a dozen eggs to feed his family should get the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars. I can't say I agree with that one.

Once again, you're ignoring the point entirely.  

I think there needs to be much more education with regards to drugs and their many negative effects including alcohol and tobacco...at least let people know how they're slowing killing themselves with poisons if they should choose to abuse said drugs.

If people choose to engage in drug use, tobacco, alcohol, whatever, the consequences are on them. Why do we feel the need to have to educate everyone and criminalize things that, in and of themselves, don't victimize anyone. Look, if someone smokes a joint, does a line, shoots up heroin, whatever, in their own home, and doesn't rape anyone, doesn't steal, doesn't do anything that violates the rights of anyone else, then what the f**k business is it of anyone else's? Simply indulging in the substance didn't harm anyone. It's when a person takes that into the public and endangers others that it becomes a problem. If that same person then goes out and kills someone or steals a car, then they have violated someone else's rights and have therefore forfeited their own at least to some degree. How is this a complicated issue? It's called accountability for one's actions. Honestly, if someone broke into your house and stole from you, then they've violated your rights and your privacy and have invaded you. Does it really matter whether or not they were sober? It certainly doesn't to me. Do I really give a f**k if Joe from next door is in his living room smoking a joint? No. I do not. And I have children. Now, if Joe from next door tries to get my underage kid to smoke a joint with him or anything else to my kid, then it becomes a problem. Everyone wants to blame alcohol and drugs as if alcohol and drugs committed the crime. That's absurd. That's like shooting someone and saying the gun committed the crime. No it didn't, it was you raising the gun, pointing it at someone, and squeezing the trigger, numbnuts. Or saying, "Oh, the gun just went off, I didn't mean to shoot that person." Then why did you have it out and were pointing it at the person, dips**t? So there, I've come out and said I'm in favor of decriminalizing drugs and given a basic justification for my position.

Whatever happened to simple accountability? In the old days of justice, before the prohibition of substances started rearing it's ugly head about a century ago, you got punished if you victimized another person. End of story. If you hung out in an opium den in 1890 and got high all day long, then went home and crashed, nothing happened to you. You didn't get arrested, you didn't go to jail, none of that bulls**t. Now, if your life became a ruin because you became an opium addict, well then that was your own fault. Is this such an unreasonable thing to accept?

The point of punishment is to detour people away from doing crime at the first place, otherwise there is no point for the law. Why should I buy a dozen of eggs if I know the police will not do anything? My motive (stealing the eggs to feed my family) shouldnt justify my actions. The fact is I'm stealing the eggs.

Is it fair from me to serve the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars... No, but I dont think its fair for a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars serves the same punishment as murder or rape.

Life isnt fair... Lindsay Lohan is getting a scratch compaired to any poor schmoe that has actually did the samething.



That got thrown out of the window because too many selfish people use their unlawful actions as an excuse so they don’t feel guilty for doing something bad and instead play the victim so they can get pity... Like smoking a joint... “Yes its illegal but it’s just a minor possession… why should I spend the same about of time in jail like the drug dealer?” [Typical argument]

The harsh reality is… buying the drugs from the drug dealer is making the demand for the supply.

Then comes the typical argument ~ legalize the drugs then the dealers will not have a supply.

First problem… which drugs, at what point and how can you say no to the others? How can you actually draw the line after pot or crack?

Second problem is acceptance of chaos… telling people that “such and such” is now legal because its too hard to stop people from doing such activities will incite others into pushing the envelope. If 1 person steals a dozen of eggs is that ok? What if 20 people are stealing a dozen of eggs?

Think I’m wrong? What is the most common argument for legalizing pot? Prohibition... And what ended Prohibition?

Jim H has I made my point?

Skull I know I'm not the guy your trying to bring the point too but I don't get your point. what are you trying to hint that ended prohibition?

Um, if a person gets caught shoplifting, they do get punished. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's a simple matter of the level to which one has violated or cause harm. The person who stole eggs from the grocery store has victimized the business's right and goal to turn a profit, but how much did he actually hurt that aim? Very little. The person who embezzled 2 million dollars not only significantly hurt that company, but also affected that company's ability to pay salaries to it's employees, provide medical insurance, etc. so that crime has affected many people in a significant way. So, again, is this really a simple question of you either stole or you didn't? And what does Lindsay Lohan have to do with anything? I certainly agree that this is an insult to justice. What does that have to do with the argument?

I'm not sure what you're asking about prohibition. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s is a valid argument about what creates criminality. Profit. When did organized crime rise to great power? During Prohibition. Why? Because there was a demand for substances that were illegal that criminals could provide instead of earning a living in a legal manner. Criminals are criminals. Giving them more ways to break the law increases their opportunities for illegal profit. Let's look at the border for example. There are drug cartels wreaking havoc on the poor Americans who have farms and/or property in the area. These poor people are paying the price for prohibition. Remove prohibition, and those people's lives improve. But this is not going to happen because the politicians profit too much from drug prohibition. They get votes by condemning it, and they profit monetarily from it. Is it just a coincidence that the production of opium in Afghanistan has increased exponentially since 2003? If so, that's got to be one of the strangest coincidences I've ever seen.

Does decriminalizing drugs not create other problems? Yes, it most likely does. It would be naive to say that the influence of drugs does not increase the liklihood of someone commiting a real crime. Granted. The same can be said of guns. I'm in favor of the right to bear arms as well. One of the arguments for gun control is that those that keep and bear arms are more likely to be involved in gun violence. Well, no s**t, Sherlock. But the overall benefits of allowing citizens to keep and bear arms over the obvious risks is what the real issue is. The same is true of drug prohibition. I'm sure there are other potential negative about removing prohibition that I'm missing, but to my estimation most of them are about what "could" happen. What kind of world do we live in if we are going to punish people for what they "might" do?

The goverment goes to great lengths to condemn drugs and keep the fight over drugs alive and well. They do this because it benefits them. It creates a much bigger and powerful more intrusive government, and isn't that what absolute power does? I also personally believe that the U.S. government is profitting from the increase in opium production in Afghanistan, and there has been evidence of that. If you remove the prohibition, you essentially weaken the government and make it smaller, and this is something they will not allow, so I have no illusions that that will actually happen, I simply believe it is the right thing to do. However, I'm always in favor of smaller and less intrusive government.

I'm not sure I understand your chaos argument. Are you saying that legalizing drugs would lead to chaos? Have you ever been to Holland or British Columbia? I have. Neither of these places are known for chaos.

My arguments have nothing to do with my own lifestyle. The only substance I partake in is moderate alcohol consumption. I haven't smoked tobacco in nearly four years, and I haven't touched marijuana in twice as many. I choose this because I am a mature adult who recognizes that these things are harmful to me in a way that I don't want. That's my choice. I also don't begrudge anyone who can responsibly consume the substance of their choice as long as it does not affect me or my family. How is this chaos? The more you tell people they can't do something the more they are going to want it, and the more criminals you create who are going to profit off of supplying it. This is human nature. Can you imagine what would happen in this country if they suddenly prohibited alcohol? You think the drug cartels along the border are bad now.

Look, Skull, we clearly are at odds here. I understand that there are risks involved in removing drug prohibition. The people who like to paint an idyllic picture how much better off we'll be if we legalize are a bit naive. I'm not concerned with that. My reasons for being in favor of it are a simple matter of believing that we are better off with drugs legal than with them prohibited. You believe that legalizing drugs will lead to chaos, while I believe that while you may have some initial problems, society would settle down after a little while once the thrill of being able to legally consume drugs wears off. I imagine it would probably be similar to when the Falstead Act was repealed and everyone got stinking drunk for a while then life got back to normal. Neither one of us knows for sure what would happen, we're simply conjecturing over what we suppose would happen, and we both claim to be using logic to do so. In fact, both of us ARE using logic, we just have different filters for our logic.

Wow, I just realized how much I just wrote. Goodness.

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol, so the government ended Prohibition.

The typical argument for legalization drugs is ~ See government cannot control Alchol so it became legal so why not pot (or any other drug) since government seems to be failing at this too.

Therefore... based upon that logic... somebody will use that as an excuess for another criminal activity. (like illegal immigration... for example)






*Was Prohibition right at the first place... well from what I understand half the country was addicted to drugs in the late 1800's and it was an attempt to clean the country. I'm not saying the law was wrong or right, all I'm saying is people are using this example to legalize drugs, and I'm pointing out the chain... after legalize drugs something else will follow, and then we are back on the same old arguement... it always does.

You know what grinds my gears?

When I forget to push the clutch all the way in, that's what.

Okay, so, if you decriminalize drugs, you can channel all the law enforcement that's been aimed at that and shift it toward illegal immigration. That would be awesome.

You see, Skull? Through our disagreement and open discussion, we came up with a solution to another problem that neither of us intended.  :cheers:

Lindsay Lohan is proof that there is no such thing as fairness for the punishment.

Flick James ~ my original argument is based upon the idea that Government cannot afford the prisoners and are changing the crime laws so they could get out of prison… although its based upon the idea that they are paying $50,000 per prisoner each year and I don’t see 50,000 or even 20,000 actually… I’ve concluded 16,000 and the prisoners are eating at McDonalds 3 times a day and living comfortable in a 10x10 cell with 300 dollars worth of utilities (actually its 600 dollars since there is 2 prisoners in a cell) and there is one guard for every 5 prisoners. And they have at least 1,000 for healthcare per year.

Yet, we all know that isnt true because I know the prisoners are not eating McDonalds quility food, they have a lightbulb and a toilt in the cell and are required to turn the lights off at such and such time, they have no personal TV or internet and there isnt 1 guard per 5 prisoners... it's like 1 guard per 20 to 30 prisoners. And they are seldomly are treated for heathcare... Yet the government says it cost 50,000 to 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail.

Really???

I never questioned you about numbers, did I? I never based any of my arguments on money spent on prisoners. That was Jim H. Once you start getting into statistics and manipulated numbers I lose interest.

Besides, I'm much more interested in this new justification you gave me about law enforcement. If you limit what is illegal, law enforcement can be less spread out and ineffective and concentrate on more important things. You see? Decriminalizing drugs makes cops more effective. Now let's get on to decriminalizing prostitution and even more cops can get freed up to work on more important things.  :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

p.s. Besides not doing drugs, I also don't do prostitutes.

lol... I've know and it wasnt intended towards your but the whole "Government cannot afford such and such and needs to cut something stupid" does grind my gears...  :cheers:

To Skull thank you for clarifying your point, I had just woken up and wasn't putting two and two together (I'm working third shift this week). I can't say I agree with you but I do get your point none the less.

Anyways to change gears.... now what really grinds my gears are people who deny certain things in history happened. For example Holocaust deniers. Theres plenty of evidence that it happened from Jewish survivors, allied soldiers and lets not forget the Nazis themselves. They thought they were going to win the war so they filmed and documented a lot of it.

Thanks...  :cheers:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Cool, then you know why I hate the digital remastered Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1997)... it is an attempt to change history.

Actually bud I didn't know you thought that, but you are very correct it is tampering with history. Although I don't think I'd put George Lucas in the same group as Holocuast deniers though. Very different subject matter. And besides Lucas's recent attempts just make me sigh with disapointment, while Holocuast deniers "arguements" make my fists clench.

You're now making a slippery slope argument, more or less.  I'm not convinced such a slope exists.

The countries that have decriminalized personal drug use have not seen this slide, so I see no reason to believe it'd happen here.  Look at Spain, Italy, and Portugal.  They have not had any measurable negative consequences to their decriminalization whatsoever.  As to how to define a "personal" amount, Portugal considers it roughly 10 days worth of daily doses.  There is no exact line here, one just has to be made up.  And frankly, if that allows extremely small time dealers to get away with it, I couldn't care less.

Oh, and I primarily agree with Flick James on this.  The money is secondary.

I personally would be very much against decriminalizing drugs if it means people under the influence are going to be out there in society expected to work and/or operate vehicles. They would be a danger to others. They would be useless as workers. I'm personally embarrassed to even be around a drunken and/or otherwise intoxicated person. I've seen families torn apart due to alcohol abuse. I knew a mother who lost two sons, one to alcohol poisoning and another to liver failure. I've seen a daughter humiliated by her drunken stumbling father acting like a fool at family get to-gethers. I've seen personal family warfare even during what's supposed to be happy times such as Christmas because one person decided to party too much and took all their pent up hostility out upon their families once their inhibitions were loosened. I know another family where it descended into violence of an husband towards a wife and her friends. I'm not saying it's the drugs themselves per se that is the problem, although their availability does seem to have grown and become much more common meaning there's even hard drugs nowadays in the smaller more rural parts of the world such as where I live, but it is the abuse of them and abuse has become much too common. It's also become way, way too easy for people to abuse prescription and over the counter drugs these days as well. A strong person needs no pick me up, no bottled courage. It's obvious drugs, not to say in the case of medication they can't be used in many positive ways, or at least their abuse is for the weak.

First what's good in another country doesnt mean its good for USA. Equally is true for every country.

Second most of those countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGS_(economics)) are bankrupt (based upon their own design) and since the USA is heading towards Europe (thanks to our new president) those countries are going deeper into the hole. Also they dont have the responsablity for being a world power and they dont have the responsability to keep the world together... The USA does. Saddly our responsabilty for being a world power does place us at at a higher standard.

Third... The Prohibition argument does exist because everybody that is pro-pot keeps bring it up. Like I said I'm pointing out the chain. Ones pot becomes legal somebody will be pushing something else and use legalize pot for the excuess.

#1 You are correct.  That's not actually an argument in either direction though.  It could work out far better here too. 

But, how it worked in other countries is simply all we have to go on at this point.  It is possible it would work out differently here, that I'd acknowledge.  If it really caused problems, they can always change the laws again.  As is, I'm simply baffled at what kinds of problems it could cause. 

#2 makes absolutely no sense to me at all.  We have "higher standards" and "responsibility" so we have to treat drug users WORSE than other countries? 

#3 Again you're making a baseless slippery slope argument.  But it's not related to anything I said (I only referenced decriminalizing drugs period, not any specific drug), so whatever.

lol... I'd wish. I really do. most of the time a drug user will be arrested and released within 24 hours sometimes much less. As I was trying to say (without being focused on drug dealers/users) is that our higher standards place us above other countries, in general.


Ok, lets pretend Prohibition never happen (that means you cannot refer to any argument saying that its too hard for the police to control and say that it can be done)... So why should drugs should become legal?

Prohibition worked far better on the state level, actually.  It was when the feds took it over in 1920 that it became a dismal failure.

Skull, most of the time when you respond to any of my points you slip to the side and essentially ignore most of what I said and concentrate on related topics that I didn't actually talk about, or instead get into semantics.  Therefore, I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

So, to come full circle, you could say that Skull was really grinding your gears in this thread! :teddyr:

look, the only reason I'm even on this topic is based upon the idea that government is willing to release prisoners and change the laws (not because they realize that the law was bad) but because they cannot afford keeping people in jail because it cost the government 20,000 to 50,000 for each prisoner per year and I've pointed out that was a BS number. Although I dont have any actual data... I did use the common price of living to compair prices and I have factor that each prisoner may cost as much as 16,000 although it also proves that my assumption is also grossly over price since we all know that 600 dollars on utilites (based upon 2 prisoners in each cell) times that by 500 cells is 300,000 per month on gas, water and lighting... And feeding a prisoner 15 dollars a day based upon breakfest, lunch and supper at McDonalds... then again my numbers dont even touch the 20,000 dollars.

this whole drug argument is a side issue that I really didnt want to waste my time but it seems that I keep steping into it.

Yes I'm anti drug. I dont see any reason why it should be legal and any argument to legalize drugs also sickens me because the very issue to legalize drugs is based upon personal selfishness. I've lost friends because they kept doing drugs. Drugs does hurt even those that dont do drugs! and that is based upon my own personal experience.

But I do agree with you on one thing...

I'm not going to argue about this anymore, too. [I've think I had said enough about my feelings about decriminalizing drugs]

I'm still happy to talk about the price of prisoners...  :teddyr:

You know, I was tempted to leave a pleasant closing remark Skull, except that you just called me and several others on this thread selfish (I think, your statement there is a little confusing).  I don't quite know how to respond to that.  So, whatever.

As an actual contribution to the thread...

The layout of the city of St. Louis.  Every direction is a trap.  There are numerous exits and streets that if you go down them, you can't go back to where you came from without literally driving for 5-10 minutes if you KNOW how to get back.  If you have to guess, you can't, as the layout was apparently designed by a mad man.  I missed my exit yesterday, took the next one I saw to turn around, and ended up spending over 20 minutes trying to find my way back. 

It sucks.

I'm calling it as I see it. The only confusion is justifying an activity that destroys the mind, the body and the people around you.

It seems whenever the feds take over anything it becomes a dismal failure  :bluesad:

Some native communities in Labrador have instituted prohibition within their communities because abuse had become such a major problem. Last I heard, this change has proved a major improvement in these areas.

Personally I'm not sure I agree with forcing such a choice upon people but maybe I'd feel differently if it was negatively affecting an entire community of which I was a part...

I hate going across the river   :teddyr:  It is so confusing and I always get lost.

Reminds me of this place:

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_j4SmoTqBAQA/SfLhYjPj8TI/AAAAAAAAA0A/0g2M6jqRG2A/Spaghetti%20Junction%20Birmingham%5B2%5D.jpg)

Any time you've got a major road with a side street running parallel to it about 50 feet away, and then a cross street intersecting both of them, it's a huge mess.  People sit at the the intersection of the side street, finally get their chance to approach the major road just as the light's turning yellow, and oh gee, there I was waiting to make a left turn but now you're blasting through here at 40 mph.   :lookingup:

Sorry for bringing up the drug topic again, but this is something that really interests me. First I am for the legalization of Marijuana, not because of any supposed medical use, but because of all the illegal drugs it is the least problematic, even compared to legal drugs like alcohol.
But I don't think that legalizing all drugs is a good thing and could have very sever consequences. America is not like most of the smaller european countries that have decriminalized drugs. We are a very large country, with a larger population, with big appetites for recreation. We have a capitalist economy, where if there is a profit to be made off of something, somebody will find a way. If all drugs were de-criminalized here I think we could see wide spread marketing of very dangerous drugs.
And also most drugs are illegal for a good reason. Coke, while not the worst of the hard drugs, can become very addictive and I've seen friends who have become serious coke heads and spend all their money on that stuff, as their bodies waste away.
Opium is a drug so bad even the Chinese began prohibiting its use in 1729. Heroin is one of the most destructive drugs on the planet, think of how many great musicians have died because of that drug.
Meth is another drug that is insanely dangerous. While it might not kill you the effects it has on your body and mind stay with you long after you quit, just ask my ex girlfriend. She started using meth and it has screwed her mind up so much now she has to take anti-psychotic medications, just to keep sane.

I agree with you wyckednick.  Another thing is that when a person has to buy pot from a drug dealer, that dealer can probably make more money from them if they push them into a harder drug.  If you could buy pot from a regular store, the employees wouldn't have any stake in getting them hooked on something more profitable, so maybe that would be a better situation.  And as someone who smoked pot for ten years or so, it's just absurd to have it be illegal when hard liquor - which is several times more powerful - is legal. 

Okay, I hate to be so sinister, but the points brought up on the last two posts almost confirm in my mind the legalization of drugs across the board. We've got too much of a culture of wanting to treat addicts and intervene and put them on a lifetime of co-dependency on AA. I'm not an addict, but I've witnessed AA meetings and it's like a religious cult. Like I've said before, whatever happened to accountability? Let the addicts weed themselves out and suffer the consequences. I know it causes a great deal of pain for the families of an addict, but aren't we better off without them? I actually agree to some extent with Skull's claim about advocates of drug legalization just being selfish and wanting to get high. I'm not quite so black-and-white about it, but I agree that this is somewhat true, and you advocates need to examine yourselves about your motives. I favor legalization and I have absolutely no desire to partake. Maybe a little weed on New Year's Eve, maybe, but probably not even that. This is a simple question of letting humanity be responsible for their own actions. Skull has indicated that he has seen people close to him whose lives were destroyed by drugs, and, because of his experience, he will probably tell you that those people were pretty selfish. So I respect Skull's experience, I just disagree with him on the solution. I say, all the more reason to let them weed themselves out of society. Don't help them, no interventions, if they really want help and really want to get out of their hole, they will do so of their own accord, and they will claw themselves out on their own.

My wife is from Ireland, and I always am a little fascinated by their approach to alcohol whenever I go there. There are stereotypes of the Irish and drinking for a reason. As a culture, by and large, they enjoy the drink. That's actually the common euphemism for alcohol, "the drink." When a person is drinking heavily, you'll hear their friends say "he's on the drink." It's common for people to go on drinking phases, where they may drink a bit heavily, then go off of it for a good amount of time. There are also plenty of teatotallers there as well, who never or rarely drink. But their approach to someone who is drinking heavily is not "oh, he's an alcoholic," or "oh, he needs help, we need to intervene." They let the man either destroy his life if he chooses or pull himself out. Sometimes, the man is simply enjoying drinking, then gets bored with it, and goes dry for a few months because he realizes he's neglecting his family a bit by spending too much time at the pub. The average American would probably say, "oh, well, they're just a nation of functional alcoholics, that's all." That would be very typical, because only a culture like ours could come up with a phrase like "functional alcoholic." No, the person can't just be someone who enjoys drinking and does just fine with it, he has to have a disease.

Let's just stop the hypocrisy. How about a little social Darwinism? I personally believe we have so much damn dysfunction in society because we try to help self-destructive people too much. People who, in the old days, would have removed themselves from society through their foolish actions sooner or later. Let them go gracefully, and let people make up their minds for themselves. I mean, are we really better off in the current culture of people being addicted to prescription drugs instead? You could argue that this is actually worse because of the amount of synthetic garbage the American populace is getting prescribed to them daily.

Sorry for the rant, I just don't understand the stances people take on this issue, on both sides. There is a bigger picture here, people. The bigger picture is a free society where we let people make their own decisions, and we also let them pay the price for their mistakes, and if they want help, they have to prove it and get it themselves. Am I insane, or isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

Sigh, I could go on for days. I'll stop here. Is there anyone here who understands what I'm saying?

I disagree in the case of mental illness simply because it's difficult if not downright impossible to think the least bit rationally when your brain isn't quite working properly. For some people with a mental illness, all they need to stabilize themselves are prescription drugs because the problem is a chemical imbalance (take someone with bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia off their drugs and you'll see what I mean). For others, therapy and counselling work wonders for helping them figure out how to cope with their illness and any underlying issues related to it. In many cases, a combination of both works well since the drugs help to get them balanced until they're ready to handle things on their own.

And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that so many people these days are being misdiagnosed with a mental illness. I think there are at least two underlying problems with that: 1. People want a quick fix for everything. Taking a pill is much less effort than actually confronting a serious issue, after all, even if refusing to tackle the problem means that you keep taking those pills in order to cope with it. 2. Drug companies are infamous for bribing doctors. I'm not saying that all doctors fall for it, because there are still many who genuinely care about their patients' health and will work with them to try to find something that works. However, there are too many who'll just give them patients X drug because the company will give them a nice new condo in Miami if they do, regardless of whether or not the drug actually works for the patient or if it actually harms the patient. Someone who's just really sad doesn't need anti-depressants; more often than not they just need someone who'll lend them an ear and a shoulder to cry on.

I do agree that people who choose to be self-destructive should be more or less left to discover the consequences of their actions on their own since they won't learn from other people's experiences and wisdom. However, a mental illness is not something anyone chooses to have and if a person can be treated for it, then I say do it. Help them out and they can be productive members of society, too.

In no way was I suggesting that mental illness not be treated with the appropriate pharmaceutical. That's not what I'm talking about. However, you do seem to understand my point about Overprescribed America. I mean, doctors are very quick to diagnose kids with some kind of disorder and start putting them on drugs. This p**ses me off to no end. Putting kids on anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, it's like we're trying to create a nation of dependency. Little Johnny is having a little trouble learning? Let's prescribe something. Yay, we have more people on drugs with prohibition that we ever had before prohibition.

Is this thing on?

Wow.  AA is not like a religious cult. Let the addicts weed themselves out? What does that even mean? Just say Eff them? Nice attitude.  :lookingup:  I'm glad when at the age of 14 and an addict the people in my life didn't say go eff yourself Tracey! We are done dealing with you. Go die in a gutter. unbelievable.
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana and no, I don't smoke it.

lol... isnt the whole topic "You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?" is about rants [no need to be sorry]

I think the mistake is that too many people think that a free society in terms that freedom gives you the right to do whatever we want to yourself; I call it personal selfishness because you are placing your own personal freedom above everybody else. But for a free society to function it requires respect and boundaries. Therefore you are not placing your own personal freedom above the others.

Example: A “red” stoplight in the intersection, you are required by law to stop although you can choose to go right through it. A real free society would stop whenever the person likes to, although it’s not productive since that person is likely to crash into another car.


The intent of the US constitution is to guarantee the citizens the freedom from government; as the first 10 Amendments are clarifications for the freedom/rights for the citizens and the guarantee that government has limited powers.

:)

Thank you. I think it's a fine attitude. I never said the addicts should go eff themselves, but I totally understand it being taken that way. Families should be supportive of their kids if they have a problem with drugs. It's natural, isn't it? It's family, for crying out loud. What I'm talking about is the assumption that intervention is a mandate. You may not have been one of them, but there are people who don't want to be helped, and to them, yes, I'm sorry, but I say eff 'em. Give people the means to get help, but let them make their own decision. So, yes, I am not an advocate of intervention. This does not make me an evil person. My sister had serious drug problems as a teenager, and we tried to help her, but in the end, she had to make the decision to help herself, and she did. She never went to AA, and she still parties a bit and didn't have to go on a 12-step program and get totally clean. She worked it out herself. I applaud and encourage that.

There are some dangerous drugs out there that I don't think anyone should do. But, you know, the world is a big scary place, and we Americans have been sheltered from it, while the rest of the world has gotten stronger. I understand that these statements make me appear like an extremist and unsympathetic. I understand that this is hard stuff to take. But I am not unsympathetic to anyone who has a problem, but when you extend a hand once and it gets slapped away, maybe you try once more, and if it gets slapped away again, how far do you go? If the person is family, I imagine you go further than you would for a random person. This is understandable. However, the government should NOT be mandating people to AA and making it a government issue to clean up America. I don't trust the government in that regard. Afterall, they're somewhat controlled by pharmaceutical companies and would probably put us all on prescription meds to deal with our problems.

Look, I have become a part of this online community and value everyone here. I also understand that I come out with some views that are very unpopular sometimes. This is not a matter of pride for me or anything, but at the same time I don't apologize for it. We've become a coddling nation and, in my own personal opinion, it's gone way too far. Think what you want about my views. I haven't seen anything yet that gives me any reason to adjust them.  

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

I never said there shouldn't be boundaries, did I? I don't remember saying that. The boundaries are the law. If laws say you can't do this because it violates someone else's rights, well, then there's you boundary. The red light example is irrelevant, because you're talking about operating a vehicle on public roads. Driving is not a right, therefore it is no surprise that it must be heavily regulated. For example, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, on drugs, etc. should not only be illegal but extensively consequenced for violation. Why? Because this has nothing to do with rights. You're operating a vehicle on a public road that you had to get a license to operate and had to agree to the laws that regulate the open road in order to have the privilege to drive on them. What I'm talking about is quite different. I was wondering when someone would call me an anarchist.  :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Even if we were all of us comfortable with the idea of allowing a human being to go to waste, there is always the issue of collateral damage.  Some of the people connected to addicts (of every kind) are innocent victims of the choices the addicts have made (seemingly) 'for themselves'.  Babies born addicted.  Fetal alcohol syndrome.  Families destroyed emotionally and financially.  Children neglected or even abused.   Society at large does not accept that.  

We don't even have assisted suicide yet; we're not likely to get something else condoned that is perceived to be in many ways so costly to society.


Isn't anarchism *supposed to be* based on the belief that humans by nature will behave well and therefore do not need laws?  That they will 'do the right thing' and get along simply because they know that is what is best and so do not need Big Brother standing there with a big stick?  I may have lost track somewhere in all that has been posted...but this sounds consistent with what *somebody* said.  Who was that?

Your like your response the best, Newt. I made the anarchist comment because people sometimes call me that, because I have a laissez-faire attitude about how law should work. My modus operandi is almost purely ideological. I don't trust when people start talking about statistics, which are largely manipulated anyway, or applying their own personal experiences into their socio-political opinions. Personal experience is sometimes relevant, but I often find that most people rely on their own experience almost solely as what determines their views. I am sometimes guilty of interjecting personal experience into a debate, but I try to keep it to a minimum. I guess you could say I am a pure libertarian. Most libertarians lean to the right or the left a little, whereas I do not. I don't recognize the difference between a personal freedom and an economic freedom, as most do. This makes me appear to be an anarchist. No, I do not feel that humanity is naturally going to behave well and therefore do not need laws. I believe in laws. I just believe they need to limit the governments influence over our lives, and only intervene when someone who, through their actions, have victimized another's rights. I'm not naive. I know there is collateral damage to the use of drugs. There is collateral damage in just about every decision one can make.

The issue you bring up of babies being born addicted is a valid one, and one that forces me to look at my views. You're the first person in this thread to have done that. I hope you take that as a compliment. That's a tough issue, and issues like that definately challenge my hardline stance in the matter. I have two kids of my own, and I love them dearly and would protect them ferociously. I guess it still comes down to accountability. A mother doing drugs while pregnant, well, that has consequences that affect another, doesn't it? How to deal with that in the paradigm I've been advocating? That is a tough one. Give me some time on that one.

No intent in placing words in your mouth... I'm just saying that a free society cannot function without respect and boundaries. (yep, boundaries can mean laws.)

The example is to show how personal selfishness doesnt work. We dont have to limited it to driving...

Another example: You going to McDonald for lunch and standing in line to place your order. Somebody walks in front of you and places his order.

I'm guess your getting nightmare on the new Healthcare Law...  :buggedout:

Hot weather grinds my gears.  :hot:

Actually, Skull, I must retract my statement that Newt was the only one to make me step back and re-examine my views. You have done that as well. I still don't agree with you. :teddyr:

Actually, I disagree about personal selfishness not working. In many cases, it is what has created our standard of living. Let's take a famous actor, for example. That actor may not like a script he is being offered and sees it as a big pain in the ass, but sees it as an opportunity to buy that house in Bel Air and that new Ducati he's been eyeing. So, he accepts the project. The movie gets released and makes the studio money, employs hundreds of thousands of people across the nation in making the movie, distributing it, and selling the tickets and refreshments at the theatres, and entertains millions. At no point in this entire endeavor was a "greater good" motive involved, just pure selfish desire, but look at how many people it benefitted. If it turns out to be a bad movie, then it benefits us here, doesn't it?

McDonalds? If the guy looks like he has the physical prowess and inclination to pound me into oblivion, I guess I'm unlikely to say anthing. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

It's interesting that the crime rate here is going up as is drug addiction and abuse with much more seriously deadly and dangerous drugs now known to be here in places they never were before. Personally I don't think legalizing drugs and allowing widespread drug abuse is going to solve these problems. In fact, I suspect it would cause far more. With regards to Marijuana, I understand people under the influence are basically still intoxicated. I've known people who liked to abuse this drug every now and then when I went to college. They normally missed lots of time from class and only a minority passed and not a one of them seemed to really care about anything really as they were always too laid back. As with any drug abuse, there's going to be consequences especially if feeding a drug addiction becomes more important than family or loved ones. I don't agree with taking pain medication for every little ailment or seeking a doctor's prescription for every perceived wrong either.

Well, you say that crime is going up as drugs are making their way into your area, right? Why is that? Drugs are illegal. Therefore, in order for drugs to come into an area, criminals need to bring them, so naturally there would be an increase in crime. You bring criminals into an area, they're naturally going to bring with them other crimes. I hope nobody is seriously going to debate that correlation, it's a pretty solid one. So, if you remove the criminality of drugs, doesn't it logically follow that there would be a decrease in crime, not an increase?

I can go on all day with these, folks. Keep 'em coming.

People who join this forum only to make 4 or 5 posts.
Why ?
You can do that as a guest.

Personally I pretty much agree with a lot of what's being said here except I don't agree with legalizing marijuana because I don't believe it's truly for the greater good of the community to do so. I don't see how allowing more widespread drug use, abuse and addiction is of any real benefit to a community...

Alright, I think think many of the arguments leveled against the decriminalizing of drugs seem to be operating on the assumption that drugs would be legalized with no regulation whatsoever. Yes, that would be chaos, and extremely dangerous. Legalizing drugs with a similar kind of regulation as exists with alcohol and tobacco, on the other hand would actually make drugs less dangerous, not more. It is far easier to regulate the safety of what is sold by a licensed establishment than what one would buy from an illegal dealer.

Does this remove the potential damage that one can do to one's own life by drug consumption? It does not. Again, there's that personal accountability thing again. That thing that a free society cannot do without. A least with decriminalization and regulation we can protect public health to some extent and allow the U.S. to profit from that industry, something our economy could really use. Other countries don't want us to decriminalize drugs, because they profit off of it through the illegal drug trade. Like I said in an earlier argument, is it a coincidence that poppy production in Afghanistan has increased exponentially since 2003? Do you think Afghanistan wants us to legalize and regulate drugs in this country? That would remove a lucrative power base from them.

We were talking about a greater good, were we not?

Flick James ~ It'll be safe to assume that government can/could/would place strict regulations on such drugs and even attempt to places stiff restrictions and tought penalities.

But... It doent work.

For example that government regulations dont work and check-mate on the argument is Teen Alcoholism... We have Teen Alcoholism when the law clearly states that nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to drink alcohol.

More examples of non-working government regulations... Guns [the restrictions/bans dont stop the criminals] and Drugs [Yep, Drugs this very argument... So tell me how can we trust the government placing restrictions to Drugs when the current restrictions doesnt work?... So how can we trust the government to ban legalize marijuana (or other such drugs) from the hands of children and teenagers when they cannot stop them from drinking alcohol.]

wow you got me stepping into this topic again... :)

It's all good, Skull, this has been one of the most exhilirating threads I've been a part of for some time. I know I'm bagging on alot of arguments, don't anyone take it as as a personal insult.

So, okay, Skull, we're not playing chess here, and if we were, that's far from a check-mate. You are using the words regulation and restriction interchangeably. What I'm talking about are regulations on the quality and safety of the drugs being sold. You can't tell me that legalization and regulation would not improve that. Also, your gun analogy doesn't make much sense. Yes, restrictions and bans on guns certainly do not work, so doesn't that support my argument? Yes, teens get ahold of alcohol despite establishments being banned from selling to them, because they get someone to "score" for them, or you have an establishment breaking the law. But to say that those regulations do not lower the numbers of teens accessing alcohol is ridiculous. Besides, if drugs were legal that would be an easy fix. Instead of law enforcement being spread too thin going after drug cartels and dealers and so on, they can be channeled into enforcing the laws that make sense, namely the sale of these substances to minors who shouldn't have them. I'm sure you would be the first to agree that the punishments for anyone who provides substances prohibited to minors are not nearly severe enough or enforced enough. Why is that? Because law enforcement is too damn busy chasing after illegal drug cartels and distributors and dealers.

I'm not opposed to tough laws, but they should be tough against people who are victimizing other people. Providing alcohol or drugs or tobacco to minors is something that cannot be allowed. So, you really only have two options that are going to actually work:

A) decriminalize drugs and regulate them toward the safety of the populace and to the protection of minors

or

B) completely ban all potentially dangerous substances, including alcohol, tobacco, all drugs, everything, and become something akin to some middle eastern countries.

Anything between these two solutions does not work. I vote for option A.

So was I...

Again.

We have Teen Alcoholism when the law clearly states that nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to drink alcohol. There is tons of regulations and safety that is placed upon the government to prohibit the sales of Alcohol to anybody under the age of 21... yet we have Teen Alcoholism.



So far there is no proof that government can effectly regulate anything.



Yes it does... it proves that government cannot regulate anything. The point of gun bans it to prevent gun violence (the intent) but still criminals will get guns in their hands and still cause gun violence. Actually, Chicago has a stiff gun ban and we had 21 shootins over the weekend.



If your trying to tell me that the government can regulate drugs effectively, then no.



lol... [try again]



So you are saying that Teen Alcoholism isnt as problem today?

•Number of teens in grades 9-12 that used alcohol in the past month has grown by 11 percent, (from 35 percent in 2008 to 39 percent in 2009) [http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/teen-drinking-on-rise-again-parents-wake-up-1229390/]



Talk about sliding on a slippery slope...



Assuming on what that all drug dealers are going to stop selling drugs if one drug is legal or (all)? Really?



I think your argument is supporting my issue that we cannot trust government regulations. The excuess that cops are too buisy chasing drug dealers is a strawman.



Oh I believe no demand = no supply. I really think some of these "victims" are equally responsable for their own actions (accountablity) so the users should serve some time in jail, maybe if they realize that they can go to jail they'll think twice.




How about c...

C) Obey the law.

Skull, we're going in circles here. About the only thing we agree on is that the system is broken. I understand your argument. You want to get tougher on drug prohibition, and your motive is for the greater good of the country and the community. I say that drug prohibition doesn't work, so let's do away with it and regulate, my motive also being for the greater good of the country and the community. So, we're both advocating regulation and restriction, just different kinds, yet, here we both are saying that the government can't regulate anything, so doesn't that make both of our solutions invalid?

I guess we keep the broken system in place then.

I'm not good at manipulating the quotes so I'll do my best.

"So far there is no proof that government can effectly regulate anything."

Yes there is. Just because the government can't perfectly regulate something against violation doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. This argument says that the government can't do ANYTHING right so keep the broken system in place. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that mean the government can't effectively regulate drugs as prohibited. Haven't you just invalidated your own argument in the process? You have effectively dropped a nuclear bomb on the debate, making it virtually impossible to progress.

"Yes it does... it proves that government cannot regulate anything. The point of gun bans it to prevent gun violence (the intent) but still criminals will get guns in their hands and still cause gun violence. Actually, Chicago has a stiff gun ban and we had 21 shootins over the weekend."

You have completely lost me here. I don't know what your position on the right to bear arms is, but I support it fully. I also don't support gun bans because you basically disarm the law-abiding citizens and put the guns into the arms of the criminals only. This is exactly why I don't agree with drug prohibition, because you make profiteers out of criminals, and these criminals bring drugs into areas and increase the crime rates, BECAUSE drugs are illegal.

"Assuming on what that all drug dealers are going to stop selling drugs if one drug is legal or (all)? Really?"

Yes, really. Why would people risk going to drug dealers when they can walk into a licensed establishment with no risk at all? Perhaps a small percentage would still go to dealers, kind of like a ticket scalper concept, but wouldn't most buy legally? Is it a perfect system? No. I never claimed it was. I don't think I ever said anything like "all drug dealers would go away", did I? If I suggested it, I didn't mean to.

"I think your argument is supporting my issue that we cannot trust government regulations. The excuess that cops are too buisy chasing drug dealers is a strawman."

That's not a straw man. A straw is when you take the opponents argument and exaggerate it to make the argument look preposterous. I was talking about a law enforcement system that cannot compete with the crimes being committed. They are spread too thin because we have too many laws to enforce. I'm talking about a sensible reallocation of resources. It is far easier for law enforcement to enforce regulations on licensed establishments than it is to track down advanced and armed criminal cartels. This is not a straw man argument.

"Oh I believe no demand = no supply. I really think some of these "victims" are equally responsable for their own actions (accountablity) so the users should serve some time in jail, maybe if they realize that they can go to jail they'll think twice."

Yeah, I believe that no demand = no supply as well. I'm not sure what that means. The law of supply and demand says that the scarcer and more difficult an item becomes to acquire, the more valuable it becomes, accompanied by an increase in demand. This is basic tried and true business academia here. When you make the item more available and easy to acquire, the price goes down, the demand eventually goes down, until the market meets equilibrium, but the demand will NEVER go away. I hope you weren't suggesting that by prohibiting drugs you eliminate demand. I believe wholeheartedly, based on basic supply and demand principles, that just the opposite would occur. This is conjecture on my part, and I can't guarantee such a thing, but what I can do is point out that prohibition has done nothing to decrease demand, and may actually increase it.

"C) Obey the law."

Okay. How do you propose we make that happen?




 

With regulations or not, legalizing drugs means easier access and more acceptability within society leading to more drug addicts and a less effective work force IMO. I personally think drug abuse, including prescription and legal drug abuse, should never be seen as acceptable within society or anywhere else. At least with many drugs being illegal it's shows that overall society frowns upon the action of taking and selling said drugs.

(http://www.themanestreet.com/forums/images/smilies/Clap15.gif)

I check in here every morning to see if you guys are still going at it  :teddyr:

First Perfectection is the point. Government by making recreational drugs legal is in fact telling society that its ok and safe to get high. Dont you actually see what I'm saying. If people believe its ok then people will start at a younger age, either being introduced by family or standing in front of seven-eleven and asking a stranger to buy a joint. Therefore its going to become a bigger problem.

Currently its really hard to tell children that drugs is bad since our culture (TV, Internet, even the law) defends the addicts.

Yes I'd droped the nuclear bomb on the debate... I've also won the argument... Teen Alcoholism.


I dont see how you are lost... I'm only pointing out the fact... Government laws are not guarantee to work, criminals will always disobey the law.


Its really best to assume that government will not legalize-every-piece-of-crap-a-drug-dealer-sells. It's also safe to assume that the price of government controlled drugs will be more expansive.

The most common argument is legalzie drugs will get remove the drug dealers. I disagree because I believe the legalize drugs will open a new market for the drug dealers to undersell the government cost and introduce new drugs into the system. Unless you actually believe that drugs like Crack is going to be legal?


The police is spreaded thin because there are more people here and the government isnt hiring enough based upon the population. It's not based upon the crime. crime happens, that why we have the police. saying the police is spreaded thin because they are all focus on drug dealers is preposterous and a straw man.


To control the demand you put the drug users into jail as well as the drug dealers.


By inforcing the penality.

Same here.  :bouncegiggle:
In fact, this is the most entertaining part of my day!  :cheers:

Teen Alcoholism doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that, regardless of restriction or regulation, people are going to break the law. You've won nothing, and society has lost because of this stubborn insistance that the war on drugs and prohibition is winnable, or even reasonably containable. Police corruption, political corruption flourish in a prohibitive environment, especially where addictive substances are concerned. This has been demonstrated over and over. Do I really need to keep bringing up Iran-Contra, the Afghani poppy industry, the Vietnam heroin connection? Prohibition cannot work because drugs are responsible for too much corruption. The vast majority of police scandals involve drugs. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons. How can we contain drug abuse in society if we can't even keep them out of our prisons? Will you please, please, for the good of society, wake up? Tobacco is among the most addictive of substances, yet, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue, less people are using tobacco than they were 20 years ago, and those number continue to go down.

In no way am I advocating drug use, and in no way does lifting prohibition mean that the government is condoning drug use. That is absurd. That's like saying the government condones tobacco and alcohol use. They do not. They treat them as personal choices, yet also treat them a potential health risks, and because of that, our society is far more educated on the affects of both of those substances than we are about any illegal substance. Think about it. Almost everyone knows exacty what alcohol and tobacco do to you. How many Americans really know what marijuana, or meth, or heroin do to you? They know a little, but far from what they know about alcohol and tobacco, because of this horrid prohibiton system.

So, okay Skull, you can continue to keep bringing up Teen Alcoholism over and over again. You seem to perceive that as some sort of trump card or check-mate. I don't question your motives, I know you are after a greater good. So am I. But you seem fixated on this notion that those who advocate the lift of drug prohibition are acting out a desire to get high. Some are. But if you look at my motives, and if you look at the other thread I posted on this issue, there are advocates who are opposed to drug use, but have come to their senses that drug prohibition does not work. You can keep saying that drug abuse would grow by removing prohibition, but you are operating on an assumption that you cannot prove. Proof that drug abuse flourishes despite prohibition is already proven. I would go one step further that it flourishes BECAUSE of prohibition, but I won't fault anyone if they disagree with that statement, as it's a little more open to debate.

In any case, I am tired of trying to convince people that because I advocate the decriminalization of drugs I am in favor of drug abuse. I also don't wish for this thread to be hijacked by this debate any more. That was why I created the other thread. I welcome you to join the debate there, as I don't think it's fair for us to continue here. This will be my last post on this issue in this thread.

 :drink:


VERY TRUE!!!! And I win!!! Have a nice day.  :cheers:

Sorry no need for me talk about this issue anymore!

Skull. I am extremely disappointed. I have had a good deal of respect for you up to this point. I win? Have a nice day? Skull, I know you are more mature than that.

I agree it sounds immature but so does this whole agrument of legalizing drugs is Immature  therefore so I can prove a point I'll have to playball at the same level.


First... the drug users are equally responsable for their own actions.

Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users dont deserve jail.

I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions.

Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?

Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement.

Thank you for playing ball. I'm not sure how I have been immature. I am debating and justifying my position. In fact, I have acknowledged your points far more than you have acknowledge mine. You have been routinely cherry-picking which of my premises you will address and ignoring the rest. However, I am glad you have decided to rejoin the debate. I am not in this to win, Skull, I am in this so that people will understand the issues better. Simply saying "drugs are bad" and "teen alcoholism is bad" is not going to help anyone. Why do you continue to ignore my premise that drug abuse continues to flourish in an prohibitive environment? Did you look at the LEAP website I posted in the other thread? Are you ignoring that too? These are people in law enforcement, cops, DEA agents, judges, prosecutors, who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs and they are coming to their senses and advocating that the drug problem can be more effectively fought by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue. You are also ignoring my premise that police and political corruption flourish in prohibition. I know you hate when people bring up the Falstead Act in this debate, but they do so because it is relevant. During alcohol prohibition, not only was alcohol consumption prevelant, but people were drinking very dangerous "bathtub gin" concoctions. You can control the safety of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not. You can also educate on the dangers of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not. Again, you have ignored my premise that the average American knows far more about what alcohol and tobacco do to your body and brain than they do about what illegal substances do. The positives of decriminalizing drugs and treating them as a public health issue are stacking up and you keep saying "teen alcoholism."

Now, on to your points.

"First... the drug users are equally responsable for their own actions." Good, so we agree there. Why should they be responsible for using a substance if they have not done anything other than use a substance? Until they have committed a real crime that affects someone else, they have done nothing but make a personal choice that affects nobody but themselves. If they have a problem with addiction, and they want help, help should be provided by the Department of Health. Incarceration won't help them or society. Are you really in favor of throwing some college kid who has a joint into prison? Do you know what happens when you do that? They actually become hardened criminals and get exposed to far worse drugs in prison.

"Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users dont deserve jail." You're right. That is my argument. That continues to be my argument. As long as they don't affect the rights or safety of another, they have done no wrong. Newt brought up the issue of addicted pregnant women causing their babies to be born with an addiction. That is a horrible problem. However, this problem is happening, and it's happening now, during prohibition. Newt's assumption is that by legalizing drugs you increase that problem. By unfettered legalization with no regulation, yes, you do. However, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal one, it is debatable whether or not such a problem would increase. In my opinion it would decrease. But, you see, that is an assumption that is no more valid than the assumption that it would increase.

"I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions." No the don't. They need that accountability removed, and they need to be held accountable for when they endanger others. The demand is there and it's illegal. You're arguing that by enforcing the laws more and cracking down more you're going to remove or decrease demand, yet there is absolutely no way for you to prove that. I'll bring up Afghanistan again. That is a Muslim country that enforces law through extreme prejudice and, for the Muslims, drug use is far less acceptable than it is in our society. Yet, the opium industry is out of control. And who are they supplying? Mainly the U.S. Prohibition does not reduce demand. It can even be argued that prohibition increases demand, but, like I said before, I will already accept your disagreement with that statement, because I accept that it is highly debatable.

"Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?"  Yes, really. Those law enforcers from LEAP even agree to that. They cannot get rid of the drug lords. No matter how hard they fight and how many drug lords they take down, more spring up in their place. They can't win. The only way to be even remotely affective with prohibition is to enforce it within a totalitarian regime, and even then, it could not be removed. It would be affectively reduced, but then we would be living in a totalitarian regime.

"Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement."  How do you know it's a false statement? What makes you think that drug dealers wouldn't be negatively impacted? Again, basic supply and demand laws. When you make something easier to obtain, such as by removing a legal ban, you reduce the value of that item. Therefore, drug dealers are negatively impacted because they can no longer charge for a drug 50 times what the drug is worth. How does that NOT curb drug dealers?

Anyway, I am happy to see you have rejoined, Skull. I wish it could be moved to the other thread, but I don't think that's going to happen. Oh well, we're still having our gears ground, so what the hell?
 

This topic still grinds my gears... :)

And lets not forget why I'm posting at the first place... Prisoners cost the government 50,000 to 20,000... And I factor these prisoners are getting McDonalds 3 times a day, wasting 3 hundred dollars worth of utilities (600 dollars per cell since there is 2 prisoner per cell) and there is 1 guard per 5 prisoners... And I'm giving them 1,000 for healthcare... I've came up with 16,000 and that's number is a joke.

Also I dont see a point in making a drug topic unless you are looking for support.



The justification doesn’t make any sense and I cannot believe any mature person can agree to it. I feel that I’m banging my head against the brick wall.

Really. How can anybody logically justify an activity that destroys the mind, the body and people (whom are not users)?



I think I’ve over expressed your points. Just because I don’t agree with you isn’t cherry-picking.



Me too… although you have pointed out my very argument correctly, therefore I have gotten my message thru.



True. But saying the users are not responsible for there own actions are just as well saying “oh, drug/alcohol is bad because they are the victim.” Accountability, please.



Because you ignore part of the problem… the users.



Oh, I guess it’s a public health issue…

Seriously, if it’s a public health issue then why let the general public gain access.



Nope… I don’t trust government and I’d prove it… by pointing out the cost of prisoners.



It only angers me when they don’t include the HISTORY as why they decided to Ban Alcohol at the first place… I mean its not like one day Government woke up and said “Today we are going to ban alcohol”



Good try, but you failed.

(http://www.iranian.com/main/files/blogimages/image008.jpg)

The reason why Prohibition was started because over half of the American citizens were addictive to some sort of drugs in the turn of the century, people were at the point of putting cocaine in cough medicine and it was part of Coca Cola’s secret recipe. Because alcohol also has addictive properties there was a movement to ban it.

“Bathtub Gin” lol… Al Capone was getting his stuff from Canada.



How? Government says “Drugs is Good” (because its legal) so how can you educate on the dangers? The government has been telling people they are going to get cancer from cigarettes since 1970 and still people don’t get it, they are smoking getting cancer and suing big tobacco based upon “not knowing the dangers.” 



All I know is people in general has good intentions and most isn’t dumb. Many assume there are levels of drugs (soft drugs and hard drugs) and many also assume they have control over their addiction. Gee, I remember talking to my cousin about this some 15 years ago and the told me he has control of his addiction, which he didn’t and he switched to cheaper and harder drugs.



Oh you are so funny. There is no positive to an addiction and there is no positive that taxpayers are forced to play for an addiction.  Actually, Healthcare is now the law of the land, do you think we can afford treating drug addictions.

“Teen Alcoholism” is the case and point of government legalizing a substance and making regulations that don’t work.



Part of the problem here is that you still think the drug users are the victims.



Not a solution when you don’t consider that the drug users aren’t equally responsible for their own actions.



Lol… in the 1800’s people were sentenced to death for stealing a horse and currently many Muslims countries get their hands chopped off for stealing. Those are extreme. 

The point of the law is to deter crime. Not reward crime. It supposes to make people stop and think of their own actions, so I’m asking for accountability. If they go to jail for 10 years who’s fault is it, mine? Gee… This is why the argument is immature.



Which is it… yes or no? You said yes but you also said “They cannot get rid of the drug lords.”

Reduce is not removal.

Legalizing Alcohol removed the bootleggers because all forms of alcohol becomes legal.



First… I know people.

Second… I know such drugs like crack and date-rape are never going to be legal.

Third… Government controlled drugs are going to cost more, since there are taxes. It’ll be cheaper to get marijuana from a drug dealer.

Okay, I'll go ahead and give up here, Skull. I called your single action of saying "I win. Have a nice day." as immature, and I also acknowledged that I was pretty sure you were more mature than that. Now I'm beginning to wonder. I never accused you of immaturity because of your arguments. I've even acknowledged that I know you are arguing out of a genuine concern for the public. So am I. If you can't at least acknowledge that then it is impossible to reason with you. You appear to think it is impossible to advocate a different solution than prohibition and be opposed to drug use at the same time. If you can't see that then, again, I can't reason with you.

Flick James ~ You do have good intentions but I'm being honest.

The problem with government legalizing drugs is basically they are telling the general public that "it's ok to get high" then all the education in the world about it's ill effects will not stop people from getting high. [I've think I said this a dozen of times. I really believe xJaseSFx statement is right!]

I'm being honest as well. So which one is right? How am I being less honest by saying that I believe that the drug problem would be better without prohibition that with it? Did I ever say that lifting prohibition would rid us of the drug problem? I'm pretty sure I never said that. I said it would be a better alternative than prohibition, and I brought up legitimate premises. That's not to say that you did not bring up legitimate premises for your arguments, but debate is not about winning or losing, it's about gaining understanding. I want to gain your understand just as much as, I would assume, you want to gain mine. Or, perhaps you simply want to win the debate and don't care if you gain my understanding or not. I'm uncertain which is the case.

So, what has happened here is that we both feel know what is better, and we both feel we are beating our heads against a brick wall. So, I think it's safe to say we are at an impass. I'm honestly glad this debate has taken place, because I am even more rooted in my position than I ever was before. It has forced me to find justification for my views, and I have found it, and in a way I thank you, because I have grown from the experience. I will honestly say that I have a greater compassion for those that have suffered from drug addiction that I did before this debate began, and I am even more convinced that prohibition makes the drug problem worse, not better. Before, I didn't care whether or not those that had drug problems got help, now I do. Also, I found an organization of current and former law enforcement agents who agree with me. So, I have gained quite a bit from this experience.

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  People who continue to go back and forth in an argument after it's become perfectly clear they can't find any common ground or convince the other party. 

Present company excepted. :wink: 

Shouldn't that be present company included? I know, I've had trouble stopping. But I was addicted to the debate. I think I should be sent to prison. I'll stop now.

Actually, must confess something terrible. I don't even care about his topic. I have no opnion on the matter. I was just using the thread to help get me to 1000 posts.  :bouncegiggle:

I'm moving my reaction to this to the Drug Prohibition thread as this thread is a good and interesting one in its own right and someone might well still want to contribute about something "grinding their gears" so to speak.

Sorry, but when it comes to legalized drugs there is no winners. My argument isnt for Flick James its for the other that will look at this thread for the next 10 years and start to believe into the nonsense that legalized drugs is a good idea. I've seen this topic made a million of times in a million other forums and usually its just a debate and the idea only adds to the flames of Justifying an insanity to do drugs at the first place. People are that stupid. So I'll fight to win and I'll drag this issue into the ground.


Sorry, Flick James... but I cannot agree with your argument because its against everything I love and respect.

No, no.
It's okay, you folks stay.

You're keeping this thread going, guys!  :teddyr:

What really grinds my gears is when I catch major errors presented as 'fact': especially by 'authorities' and when a bit of thought (or basic research) would reveal the misconception.  Such as when on the TV show How It's Made they said horseshoe nails were made of lead.  Or when Mythbusters investigated gold fish having a "three second memory".   :lookingup:

Horseshoe nails would not last a day made of soft lead!  They are steel.
The 'three second rule' has to do with animal training: it is the 'window of opportunity' (time interval) within which a response must occur in order for many animals to connect your response with what caused it.

Ooooo... such a good point!

Wait, I'm sorry, it's been awhile since I saw that ep... but wasn't the point of it to show that goldfish DO have a decent memory and can be trained?  (And I thought the myth was goldfish only have a thirty second memory?)

Road Construction annoys me... I had to used an alternate route because my main route is under road construction... and now my alternated route is under road construction...

Errrrrrrrrrrr...  :hatred:

When a bill you get in the mail is perforated so you can tear it off, but then they fold it 1/4 above the perforation, so that it tries to tear in the wrong place EVERY time . . .

Greenwashing. Yes, I'm an environmentalist and I'm taking steps in my own life to try to reduce the impact I have on the planet, but come on...I'm not an idiot. It's not hard to spot the products that companies want you to think are "green." Not too long ago there was a line of aerosol sprays that bragged about how environmentally-friendly they were because they didn't have CFC's. Well, yeah, CFC's are bad for the ozone layer, but they've been banned in this country since 1987.

Herbal Magic p**ses me off, too. I'm okay with people choosing to treat minor ailments with herbal remedies provided that they've done a little research and are using herbs that do help with that ailment. Herbal Magic wants people to believe that their products will help you lose weight (no herb does; the closest that any herb comes to burning off the pounds is fennel, and that might just helps to reduce hunger pangs later on if you have it with a meal. The key word there is "might"). I wouldn't have a problem with a company getting suckers to give up their money if it wasn't for the fact that some of their products have hurt people thanks to customers taking advice from the staff (usually high-school dropouts with about 40 minutes of training). How do they get away with this? They don't write down their lies. The one time they did they got taken to court.

On that same note, people who believe that anything "natural" and "organic" is good for you p**s me off, too. Some things literally can't be organic because they don't have any carbon in them (like water), and there are tons of perfectly natural things that will kill you. Y'know, stuff like mercury and amanita mushrooms. A little research into what you're putting into your body can keep you from destroying it with some of the over-the-counter crap you can get at pharmacies these days.

Yeah, Grave, I particularly find people who talk about the "chemicals" in everything as bad for you.  It's not to say they never have a valid point, but it's sooooo overstated.

Water's a chemical, but if you cut that out of your diet you'll die pretty quickly. I'm only partially on their side; I prefer fresh food and try to avoid preservatives because over time some chemicals put into processed foods can do some damage. I don't think they'll actually kill you, but some of them could potentially affect your health. I'm not an expert in that field by any means, but it just makes sense to me. I won't condone detoxing, though. It doesn't really work and some methods are even worse for you than the chemicals you're trying to flush out of your body. Sheesh...whatever happened to simply eating better, drinking lots of water and getting plenty of excercise?

So, one of my neighbors just bought a brand new FLAT SCREEN TV (think it was 42 inches or so), really big and nice looking.  Here's the funny part, last I checked, my neighbor doesn't have a JOB, and hasn't had one for quite awhile.  Well, turns out she filed for disability several months back, and it finally came through, so she got a lump sum payment.  I'm not really sure WHAT she's on disability for, I mean, she seems perfectly capable of walking around and doing the chores she needs to do (washing clothes and whatnot).

And to think, all this time I've been doing stupid stuff like, working a part time job that barely keeps me afloat while trying to find another one. 

(sighs)

I've been hearing this saying for years but when I think of it seems artifical because this was never a natural and health option before so why it is expected.

Really...what was eating better over 100 years ago? Food was hunted or farmed but there wasnt properly stored (and that's how the food got bad) althouth to perserve food people were using lots of salt. I think soldiers in the civil war ate salted pork (not really healthy) and I think the government just started demanding better quility around 1903 (or around that time). over 100 years ago people drink lots of water but it tasted bad because it wasnt filtered and many used Tea to desiguise the taste, and since the water isnt filtered you are also drinking germs. And over 100 years ago plenty of excercise was based upon the work you did, work was hard but it wasnt like excercise, and you had to otherwise your face boredom, there was no tv, radio or computers.

I do think we are a different animal they we were 100 years ago and I really think we are eating healthy and drinking better water.

Excercise does require initiative because we are never bored, our minds are always doing something (watching TV, Listening to the radio and reading posts on the computers)...



Hmmmm...

Reduce the impact you have? Thats a big really big...

The problem I have with the environmentalist movement is nobody is talking about the Earth Orbit and the relationship of the rotating sun. It really hard to believe the Earth Orbit around the sun isnt on a track and then expected the earth to always spin around the sun at the same distance every year. Another factor I never hear is solar flares.

just something to think about

You disappoint me Skull! I think you need to do a lot more research before you make so many general statements about the conditions of food '100 years ago'.

100 years ago people sought out 'good' wells as water sources.  They did not just heave a pot of water out of any old pond for human consumption. I have lived on two properties with good wells: both had a long history of the neighbourhood coming to them for clean, good-tasting water.

In the diet of 100 years ago (and long before) FAT featured as a food.  I can give you recipes.  A taste for fat is hard-wired into our species: it has survival value.

Obviously there is more, but I am not interested in trotting out points for you (maybe someone else will, if necessary): I hope you get the idea - that there is more to it and more angles on this than you seem to presume.


Because for years (most of your lifetime, at any rate) we have been adding colours and flavours and preservatives to what we eat - and much of what we eat should not really quailfy as 'food'.  Filler.  Something to taste or to satisfy an urge to keep our mouths busy.


 :lookingup: This one floors me!  Do you really believe that the only 'environmental' 'issue' is climate change?  Really?  There is a lot more to being 'green' than that, and a good deal of it does fall into the realm of personal actions/responsibility. Ever heard of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"?  (Is that is just a Canadian motto?) 

The problem with the whole environmental movement is all the bulls**t gets mixed in with the real problems and it winds up making people either fanatically stupid about the environment or completely ignorant to it.

We have always been a filthy species of animal, we talk about how horrible are landfills are now, but we can still dig up just as much garbage from 2000 years ago and their methods of disposing waste were even more primitive than ours. It was poop in a bucket and toss it out the window, before plumbing came around.

Most people didn't make it to 40 yrs of age, disease or accidents usually killed them long before hand. Most of the things that would kill someone even a hundred years ago have been cured by the technologies of today.

Eating something or drinking out of the local water supply was always risky before our high standards of food and water cleanliness took hold. Now manufactures recall food if it shows even the slightest sign of posing a health risk, because they don't want lawsuits on their hands.
Agriculture has been vastly improved with the use of pesticides and fertilizers, allowing us to feed massive amounts of people. People rarely go hungry in the U.S. because of our advanced agricultural practices. Droughts and pests that used to kill off whole crops and lead to the death of thousands have been eliminated in this country and in every country that follows our practices.

I can go on and on with this list,but I need to make my point. No matter what we do it will have a impact on the environment. If we really all did go to a green standard of living, with: bio fuels, wind and solar power, natural agricultural methods there would be a negative impact on the environment.

Sources of energy will always have a destructive aspect on the environment. Wind and solar power requires massive amounts of land to feed a ever growing population. Deforestation is the biggest threat with these methods of energy, the same goes for bio-fuels which will require huge amounts of land to produce the fuel needed and lots of pesticides and fertilizer to keep the plants alive. The more natural pesticides and fertilizers won't work as the need for fuel grows.

If you want to ask me the biggest problem with the world is not cars, laundry detergent, pesticides, cattle or anything else the environmentalists cry about, its that we have gotten to good at surviving. We have cut natural selection out of the picture and short of some natural disaster or war large amounts of people don't die much any more. The methods of natural population control are largely obsolete with us and short of a asteroid or a super volcano exploding are population is not likely to shrink anytime soon.

If you want to got the environmentalist route, the more natural way of living then you will need to accept that lots and lots of people are going to have to die in order to make it possible. Its morbid, I know, but its the truth.

And sorry if this doesn't quite fit in here but I just felt kinda inspired to post my insane rant about how we impact the environment.

Of course.  Any species has an impact on the environment.  WE have been making more mess than we are entitled to: so the idea is to take responsibility for our actions and excesses and minimise the changes we cause.


You forget that our brains and our society are also factors in our survival - and our behaviour.  Our intelligence and social behaviour are key parts of us/our species.  That makes them also adaptive factors.  Taking responsibility for what we do to our home may include not breeding ourselves out of existence. Among all the species on this planet, we are in the unique position of being able to see the 'bigger picture' and to choose and control our own actions toward a better end.


Now who is taking it to an extreme?  Environmentalism is about being conscious of our effects on the environment and taking steps to reduce them from the present level. It is not about being PETA for people!

And I thought you hated to argue.  :bouncegiggle:

This is something that grinds my gears a little.   :teddyr:

Life expectancy statements from 100 years ago or longer are sometimes taken the wrong way by people (basically, people seem to think someone making into middle age was a rare event, and that they'd be viewed as ancient or something).  While strictly true, it's really more like a huge chunk of people died as infants or children younger than 12.  Count from puberty, and the life expectancy jumps up dramatically.  Typically into the high 50s or low 60s, depending on where and when.

How does my choosing to join a community garden, buy less crap that I don't need, grow my own herbs, recycle what I can, help clean up my local area, and switch to more energy-efficient lights lead to the deaths of millions of people, exactly? Do ten people die every time someone picks up a plastic bottle and tosses it in a blue bin?

Skull and I just recently got done with a very long tangent about drug prohibition on this and another thread where there was a lot of misconstruance of what the other said, myself included. Looks like this is starting to happen here. By all means, go for it, I'm the last to say not to debate. I understand Gravekeeper's point about making choices, choices that I agree make a difference and I wish more people would do. I also understand what wyckednick is saying about how humans have cut themselves out of the natural selection process. I think those are two different things.

I'm saying that we are a different animal then we were 100 years ago.

I do agree we have too many chemicals in our food but it’s really hard to say its all bad when our lifespan has nearly tripled.

I've always heard people say: whatever happened to simply eating better, drinking lots of water and getting plenty of exercise?

But I'm asking is "When did it actually happen?"


I’m not against the idea of cleaning up after yourself. It angers me when I see people toss trash on the sidewalk instead of walking around the corner and putting the trash into the garbage. If this is the extent of environmentalist movement then we are at the same level.

I really do believe that us humans are far too superior to be lazy or even “cheap.” I have no problems with governmental regulations on waste disposal, although I wish there was an equal agreement around the world… China still dumps lead in the water; unfortunately I don’t see the environments knocking on China’s doorstep about the issue.

But the environmental movement is all about climate change. (Actually lets call it by the real name… Global Warming).

What angers me about “Global Warming Issues” is that the concept is a pseudoscience that tries to make itself as science fact and then forces itself upon our lifestyle.

My argument against “Global Warming” is: If man causes Global Warming then we need to believe that the Earth can magical orbit around the rotating Sun at the same distance every year and that Earth’s temperature was magically constant.

I do believe that the Earth, as well as every other body in space is subject to change based upon the gravitational pull, I also know the Sun rotates therefore the gravitational pull is always changing. I’m aware there are science theories on the chaotic orbit but they often go to the extreme about planets crashing into each other a trillion centuries from now; although I feel the chaotic orbit theory is closer to the truth because the Earth isn’t on a track or there isnt magic keeping the Earth’s orbit around the Sun at the same distance. Or maybe God is actually keeping the behavior of the Solar System completely predictable, although that would toss science out the window.



 :smile:

I hate it when reviewers give a movie's video and audio quality low marks just because they didn't like the movie itself.  It's ridiculous and extremely unprofessional.  The guy at High def Digest says a movie is "Haphazardly presented with a problematic 1080p/VC-1 transfer...suffers from drab colors, contrast wavering, unresolved blacks, and errant softness.

While somebody at another review site (who also hated the movie) says "Like most Universal hi-def releases, this one does admittedly look fantastic".

:lookingup:

That is true... Althought that was also the intent of Social Security, it was only subject to pay for the last days of human life, not 20 or 30 years after retirement.

 :smile:

I'm not talking about diets from 100 years ago; I agree that diets 100 years and older were by no means great. Heck, the only ancient diet that comes to mind that was actually fairly decent is the Mediterranean Diet (if the comparatively good health indicated by the skeletons at Herculaneum are any indicator). What I was alluding to was that, say, 50 years ago that was what most people generally agreed would help with many ailments and it worked (unless you had something really serious, like cancer). Today no one, except for an unfortunate few, in developed nations has an excuse not to eat better, especially since many ailments that are commonplace today can be directly linked to poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles. Unfortunately, we're in a society that wants a quick, easy solution to everything, so we have people making things worse for themselves by going on fad diets, taking all kinds of vitamin supplements (often without paying attention to the recommended dosage), and trying all sorts of ways to shape up without actually breaking a sweat.

However, this is a by-product of a more-or-less free market; the best we can hope for is that more people will eventually make more educated decisions on what they do with their bodies. I'm not impressed with the choices some people make for themselves, but I support their right/freedom to make those decisions for themselves (hence why it saddens me to see obese and malnourished children; kids don't really have any control over what food they have access to, so 9 times out of the 10 it's the parents feeding them junk and teaching them bad eating habits).

Oh but I do: I will post to offer points I think have been overlooked, and then let them stand for themsleves.

I get too riled otherwise.   :smile:

How so? Biologically we are the same.

And 100 years is not a very long time, btw.


This is one issue among many.  So it gets the most attention lately...that does not make it the only concern.


Speaking of pseudo-science!  You have taken a bunch of things you have heard and mashed them together without understanding.  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke's third law.  Believe what you like, Skull, it's not 'magic' - it is called 'physics'.

There are fluctuations in yearly temperatures, and then there are significant trends: look at the ice ages - the key is to examine the trends on a scale closer to the geological.

I'm done.  :lookingup:  I really do intensely dislike arguing but I abhor misinformation and faulty logic even more.

Oh you have hit the nail on the head… And that’s basically true for everything: health, environment, drugs, racism, fame, etc and etc.

Skull,

Geez, and here I thought I liked to stir s**t up. You take the cake.

p.s. 1 more post for 1000.  :cheers:

(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk300/Walknuk/duty_calls.png)

My favourite xkcd for a reason!  :wink:

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :wink:

I'll second that.

I agree that we are biologically identical but our lifestyle has changed our living conditions so drastically that we don’t have any simular relationship from people living 100 years ago. Maybe thats a stretch but I know I'll have a hard time living in 1910.



I'm asking/saying if the Earth's Orbit is constant then it must be magical or by the hands of God because its not possible according to science. A constant orbit requires a track or something to keep the world at the same distance all the time.

The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is a chaotic orbit...



We all know the Earth shifts its axis per season…from that little shift our planet can go from summer to winter and winter to summer.

I’m just saying that maybe we are getting odd weather conditions because the Earth orbit isn’t constant and I just find it interesting that these factors are never figured with global warming.

Or maybe I should say this... Even if we live in the fish bowl there are elements outside of the fish bowl (out of our control) that can be a factor.


Sure but the temperatures are based on information that is almost 150 years old… You even said “And 100 years is not a very long time, btw” so what’s 150 years compared to Earth?

I dont believe global warming is man made becauses the data isnt complete... They are not factoring the Earth's Orbit or any other chaos element that cannot be generated by a computer (like a random Mount St Helen eruption) and scientist still dont have a clue how Greenland was green a thousand years ago and how the Ice Age was started.

Sure many believe that the Ice Age was cased my a large meteor but that is also hard to digest becaues the size of the meteor should be at least 1/3 the size of the moon and it should of made a large crack on the Earth, remember the Earth is a big planet and we dropped 2 bombs on Japan and the Americans and the Russians also made several hundred nuclear testing... and still it didnt effect the world or the weather conditions.

The Ice Age could of been caused by something simple as Earth's attraction to a bigger gravational pull while making its orbit around the Sun for a few centuries and then the Earth went back on course. The frightening factor about the Ice Age it was really quick and our distance to the sun is very fragile (it only takes a shift in the axis to change the seasons).

lol... I totally forget I had 1 more post to go... :)

Don't encourage him!  Maybe if everyone ignores him he'll finish painting the ceiling.

That changes everything. You know what really grinds my gears? People who keep posting on the Internet when they've got a ceiling to paint.

 :buggedout: :bouncegiggle: :buggedout:

People posting updates on forums about movies they are watching. Just happened at two other forums:

"I'm halfway through this film and it's sooo boring"

"This film is great, ten more minutes to go!"

I hate that. Either take your time to watch the damn movie or turn it off.

:bouncegiggle: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

you know what grinds my car gears? not putting it in the next gear.

but seriously, rain. It keeps p**sin rain here in NOLA

Getting a brief rain shower on a hundred degree afternoon!


It's like getting slapped in the face right after being kicked in the crotch!


(Don't believe me?  Try being outside with the thermometer at 100 and the humidity near 100%!!!)

Thats not what I meant at all, what I was getting at is we are to numerous as a species to support through a wholly naturalistic means. If we want to have a cleaner planet and a naturalistic sustainable way of living then we can't have a population as large as it currently is.
Honestly I would like a cleaner world where we live in greater harmony with the environment. I would love to see the end of corporate mass farming which destroys the land and pollutes the water, no longer having to use fossil fuels to power our cities, less crap in our food and genetically engineered chickens and on and on, but I realize that we can't support a 6 billion plus population on that way of life.
By all means continue to do what you are doing, I recycle and do my part as well. I'm just not going to expect the world to be able to do the same.

The democratic party not talking about the HEALTH CARE LAW...

Sandflies - those pesky little insects just loving leaving me with itchy bites I can't stop scratching and can come on in through window screens and whathaveyou because they're so small.

Mosquito bites that take forever to go away even if you don't scratch them.

I hate it when I tell people I'm depressed and have been for some time, and the people (although I'm sure most of them mean well) try to cheer me up by giving me useless advice instead of just trying to be compassionate or (even better) indicting they actually care how I feel.

Here's some great "advice" I've been given:

1. Get over it.  

Yeah, that's helpful.  If I were diabetic would you tell me to just "get over" that?

2. Well, you know, others have it waay worse than you... In fact, I know this guy...  (and they proceed to describe others or people in general who have it worse than I do under the guise that I feel better about myself and my circumstances.)

This might make me sound like a prick, but, when I'm very depressed, I don't CARE how badly other people have got it, unless it's in the context of someone trying to comfort me by saying they feel/they've felt the same way, then I can see where that would help.  But just random facts about the people elsewhere living in poverty or a fellow born without legs, or whatever person somewhere elsewhere who got short end of the stick really does NOTHING to help or make me feel better.  Hell, in fact it makes me feel worse, cause now suddenly I'm supposed to feel bad about being depressed, or I just get more depressed because the examples make me contemplate just how miserable the world is.

Not to mention that fact that, yes, while some people seem to have it worse, I can think of a lot who seem to have it BETTER, so playing comparatives is just pointless.

3.  The religion card.

I get this sometimes form my stepbrother and his wife, and sometimes other people online.  They tell me that I just need to get "right" with God, and boom, my depression would go away!  

Course, what these people don't know, is that I WAS right with God, at least at one point in time.  I was a deeply spiritually person years ago, in fact, I'd say the constant depression is just one of several factors that made me turn away from that.  (When you're not feeling the peace and love you're supposed to be, it kind of erodes your faith after awhile, not just in spiritual things, but faith in everything in general.)  Basically, a Christian who's depressed a lot presents a bit of a quandary to most believers, especially those who believe that God still does healings and all sorts of miraculous things today if you believe/pray hard enough for them. How can a REAL Christian be depressed so much?  I mean, God would certainly take all that away from him, right?  

Well, he must NOT be following God very well, of course!  He's holding onto some secret sin, or he's not praying/spending enough time with God.  Ahh, problem solved!  

There's other bits of "advice" I could go on about, but I have to head off to work.

Hear, hear. Another gem is, of course, "It's all in your head." Um, not quite. In quite a few cases, it's quite possibly in the genes or the result of something going on their lives.

Btw, thanks mass media for making it seem like people with depression are just doing it for attention by inadvertedly equating it with emo teens. Way to trivialize a serious mental illness that can destroy a person's life as well as the lives of everyone around them! I mean, hell, it's not like there are ever any underlying issues that need to be addressed or anything; they can just take a "happy pill" and make everything better, right?

They. Their. There.
Learn them.
USE THEM CORRECTLY.

Cat puke , arghhhhhhh! :hatred:

Being nickel and dimed to death.   :hatred:  The school raised their bus fees to 25.00 per child. So, 75.00 a month for the kids to ride the bus to school..

So you are paying 5 dollars a day to take you kid to school and back home. Do you get a refund on sick days, school day's off and snowdays?

Although I'd often wonder what the school bus drivers so while the kids are in school, I do think many are also doing something else... at least I hope thay are... It's quite silly/wasteful if they are waiting 4 to 6 hours doing nothing.

Well, that's another thing that bugs me, waaay too damn many people think anti-depressants are "happy pills".  That is, you take them, and you're just goofy, bouncing off the walls, giggling like the teenage schoolgirl at a Justin Bieber concert. 

Uh, no.

Anti-depressants (IF they actually work), just balance you out, so you can feel NORMAL.  So, there's not that huge, dark cloud hanging over your head (or at least, it's not as dark as normal.) 

Makes you really hate the damn "normals" sometimes, huh?

Nope, no discount. I thought about letting the two oldest ride the bus in the morning but walk home in the afternoon but it would still be the full amount so why bother. I also paid 155.00 in book fees and 39.00 for a PE uniforms. I guess its a good thing my kids aren't into sports or I would be paying another 100 bucks.

I know I shouldn't complain since the state of IL is in such rough shape financially and the schools are suffering because of it.. Their school is one of 29 in the state that is in dire straits financially but ya know what, so am I.   :teddyr:

I would be happy if the money is actually going to the bus driver, the gas and the maintenance... Saddly it doesnt. When you can count the number of students on the bus and ask what the driver does after the rides.

Good ol' Illinois! 

Some days I really miss living in Missouri. 

I was put on a course of 'happy pills" in 2009 and I flipped out several times, so they didn't work for me at all: the one thing that they did do was stop me smoking for some very weird reason. I'd been trying to quit for years since 1984 and I haven't touched a cigarette since April last year.  :thumbup:

Weird.. don't think I've heard of anti-smoking side effect  (course, I don't know all the possible effects of meds, mainly just ones I'm on of have been on.)  How did it stop you from smoking, exactly?  I mean, did it eliminate the nicotine cravings, or did cigs just not "taste" the same afterwards?  (I'm a non-smoker so I may not fully understand your answer.)

They put me on Zoloft once when I tried to quit smoking. It didn't work. The only thing that ever worked was my wife and I trying for kids and me wanting to be completely rid of cigarettes before my first child came. It worked, and I quit cold turkey almost 4 years ago, completely on my own. However, Zoloft may have helped. I personally don't think anything will truly help a person quit smoking unless they're really ready to quit. I would imagine you were ready to quit and so the anti-depressant really helped.

You know what grinds my gears?

 Managers who try and overstate their influence on the success of the people they manage. I love how managers are very quick to take some credit for an employee who performs well.

What happens when that employee fails? Well, the manager is even quicker to point and document how much they tried to help the employee, offered guidance, did this and that, in an effort to prove that they weren't responsible for the failure. Well, doesn't that actually suggest the opposite? The first guy didn't need much if any help from you, so you can't very well claim influence over it to prove how great a manager you are. And if the failed employee failed even after all the guidance you gave him/her, doesn't that suggest you're a s**tty manager? 

The ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. Employers who are robbing me and other workers of hard earned wages meaning I get less now than I did 10 years ago. My father gets less than he did 30 years ago...there's sometimes seriously wrong with that in a world where the inflation is through the roof and major companies are making so much funny at the top, stealing it out of working people's very pockets and don't kid yourselves that's not what's happening. When working class people try and organize and get together, it's actively discouraged. Bailouts are nothing but big companies stealing money out of your and my pockets to keep a status quo that is making rich people riching and giving them more and more money to steal out of our pockets.

Paying 175.00 a month for comcast! All we have is cable and internet...  :hatred:

having the background laughter for things that aren't funny. Proof- NICK! WTF happened to the good o' days when Nick was awesome? :bluesad:

People who state the obvious (this could actually go under the "nice things people do to tick you off" thread) just to make conversation.  For example.......

Rain will be pouring and someone will say "Wow, it sure is raining..."

I'll be walking in with a bag of tomatoes and someone will say "Wow, thats a lot of tomatoes..."

Theres a volunteer in my workplace that works at the giftshop.  I always go in and by a couple atomic fire balls.  Every time I see her she says, "WOW, you like the hot stuff..."

A coworker of mine brought up a good idea.  I should say something ridiculous back to scare people away.  I was thinking next time that volunteer does that I'll make the metal signs with my fingers and say in a high pitched 80s power METAL voice, "YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". 

You can't pitch an idea like that and not do it. Now you're obligated. Not only do you have to do it now, but you have to post tomorrow and tell us the reaction.

:bouncegiggle: Yeah I'll get back to you.  The woman has to be past 80 so seeing a heart attack is possible I'll probably chicken out.

I can't say why I stopped altogether, it could be a combination of the meds and the fact that my office is no longer in the Union Building gardens which is almost a huge park. All I know is that I haven't touched a cigarette since April 09 and I can't explain it.  :question:

I think you may be right there.  :thumbup:

F'n people who feel a need to post about how they're drinking on Facebook.  Especially the over 40 "I'm having a mid-life crisis and am reliving my 20s a little too late but won't fess up to it" group.  God I hate these mutha f*ckas.

People who video record stuff off their TV and post it on youtube.  If you don't have the tools to do it right, don't bother.

as in video recording from the tv, not VHS recording and then puttin it on Youtube?

To clarify, playing something on their TV and using a handheld video recorer to tape the screen.  So that way you can hear their laughing and unwanted dialog.

Acne commercials. I understand that there are those people who need medication, but for christ sakes a couple of zits is not a freaking breakout. Some of these commercials actually have the balls to say that even minor acne is some kind of major medical condition, requiring a doctor visit. What kind of vain self conscience teenagers are they trying to create?

And then they always have some actress who talks about how horrible her acne was because a single zit showed up on the corner of her mouth or on her cheek and then she found this miracle product to clear up her massive acne problem. Kids if you have acne take: some rubbing alcohol, a cotton swab and wipe your face. It may burn, but it works.

These commercials are teaching our kids that if you have a problem, the solution is medication and there is something wrong with you have zits; its freaking adolescents, we all went through and with most of us it clears up by our late teens.

People who stand in highly trafficed doorways or in front of the refrigerator at work-and then act annoyed when you excuse your self to get around them.  Find a better place to talk.

I have a similar peeve: When I was in High School I HATED it when kids would form little groups and talk, hug, kiss, or something else equally annoying in the middle of the hall in-between classes. Inevitably, these were the same kids that would complain about teachers telling them to get to class. :lookingup: :hatred:

I think I've brought this up before, but lately it's really been p**sing me off. Here in Arizona, there seems to be this epidemic of people getting on major highways and using the left lane to just become a vegetable and cruise. Every other state I have ever driven in, the left lane has been the lane to go fast and/or to pass. Slower cars seem to know, generally, to stay to the right. Not in AZ! On a daily basis I will hop on the freeway for my 30-minute-ish commute to work, get over to the left as my instincts and general road decorum have always told me, and end up having to get over to the right in order to pass some dingbat who is cruising along at the speed limit, sometimes even below. What gives, you morons? Even when I get on the interstate to head north to Flagstaff, in the desert, I experience the same thing. Anyone else here live in AZ and understand what I'm talking about? I've driven in California, Illinois, and Virginia on a regular basis, and cross-country on a few occasions, and I've never seen anything like it anywhere else.

My guess is the high percentage of retirees in AZ accounts for that effect.

I can't stand one more minute of the $#@#ing news! Its all propaganda, political BS or inane #@$# I don't care about. I can not literally stand any of the major networks, CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all crap! If they do actually cover any news its all so biased I can't stand it. I just want somebody to tell me whats going on thats actually semi-objective about the whole thing.

I apologize for the rant but I was just stuck in the hospital waiting room for two hours and all they had on the TV's were newschannels.

I think I would find QVC (the shopping channel) worse. I hate their ugly clothes!

Yeah, TV news is all pretty awful.  I think the Daily Show does better coverage than any of them considering the run time, and that's just SAD.

I think the problem with the news is that they care more about ratings, than keeping you informed. The truth doesn't matter when the majority of people watch your news network.

If that was true then the news will be reporting the news based upon whom could get the most information first, the most shocking first or whatever before the other news sources (i.e. the ratings game) therefore it'll never sound like propaganda.

The NEWS (today) they are trying to mold history, swiftly!  They are too busy trying to become history, they don’t care if Obama was a good leader, global warming is real or 1,000 troops die in combat…  all they want is to become part of history. Unfortunately for the NEWS, the people has the power of the Internet to check any/all resources and often times we find the news isn’t reporting with an open mind, they have an agenda and some of their issues are either wrong or half truth.

So we are questing the NEWS and this is the real problem. Therefore the news becomes a propaganda machine because they are busy protecting their reputation. And it’s all about their reputation, because if the people don’t trust or believe in the news/reporters then they don’t have the soapbox to stand.

I agree with what your saying, but there is a big competition between the news networks for ratings and its not all based on who gets the stories first, a lot of it is about how sensational they can make these stories. Just look at Fox news, they are the most biased network on television and are always getting caught for false information, but they get the highest ratings. People don't what the truth anymore, they want scandals, lies, sensational stories, what ever makes them feel riled up and angry at the world.

Nothing new...

"Fatty" Arbuckle was destroyed because the scandle kept selling papers even though it was all lies.

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

You've got a point there. Additionally, people want news that agrees with them. If they hate Obama, they want news that hates Obama as well, just like the Bush haters sought news that hated Bush. People are so enslaved by their so-called opinions that they will ignore any fact that does not support their beliefs. I would bet that if I concocted a well written chain email that sounded authoritative that claimed it provided proof that Obama was born in another country, but was completely made-up, that the birthers would be wetting themselves trying to get it out to as many people as possible as quickly as possible without even thinking about verifying if the information was factual (I'm tempted to try this experiment). I use them as an example, but I'm not trying to pick on their ignorance exclusively, it's epidemic amongst the majority of Americans these days. I receive about one rhetoric-filled email a week on average, and I would not be exaggerating to say that half of them are so easily debunked with just a few minutes of Internet research that it's not even funny, yet people forward them along without even the slightest thought of checking it out first. Why? Because it echos some belief of theirs, and who wants to admit that their beliefs might not be supported by fact?

I have a friend who was always sending me those stupid emails. Leading up to the election it got crazy...several a week of the most hate filled, ridiculous BS I had ever heard.    :lookingup:  It got so bad it almost ruined our friendship. After replying with a link to snopes every.single.time. she sent me something she eventually stopped doing it.

There's a lady in our neighborhood who does that.  Eventually, she said "This one is confirmed by Snopes!", which was sort of true.  Hers were the "This will KILL YOU!" type story, and the one that was sort of true was so unlikely that there was only one documented case of it happening EVER.

people who always talk to themselves that says "why do these people live here?" f**k YOU, New Orleans is an IMPORTANT city that has actual HISTORY and it also brings in goods from the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and the occasional Germany. But here's my question: If  you dislike my city, then WHY IN THE FRIGGEN HELL ARE YOU IN IT?

I hate it when I'm in the middle of doing something on the comp and it just stops. 

Not crashes, mind you, a crash would be something, I could just hit the reset and (usually) be okay. 

But it does this, "We're sloooooowing down to almost nothing."  Trick.  Sometimes, as if to further mock you, you can still move the mouse around, but nothing else seems to work.  It's like, "Ahhh.. dammit, nothing's happening, but the mouse is still moving!"

So, you hit the close button to try and shut down a few things, thinking that'll help, but nothing happens.  You hit the "show desktop" button, and sometimes work (or not.)  Other times it'll work, but it still has the image of whatever you just had up instead of the actual desktop (screen hasn't refreshed).  And then when (if) it finally goes into gear all the minimizing, closing, switching that you just did occurs in a blindly rapid succession.

I really hate it when people lack the rudimentary sense to look, at least roughly, in the direction they are walking. Earlier today I was about to turn a corner in my office building, and this guy came barreling around the corner and ran right into me. Was he looking somewhere in the vicinity of where he was going? Of course not. No, his head was turned almost 180 degrees the other way. Then he looked at me as if to say I should have been looking out for him. If you had been at least cognizant of the corner you were about to turn and, maybe, oh I don't know, not walking at a near-run, we may have avoided slamming into each other, jackass.

I do see this odd behavior way more often than would seem logical, people walking, with their head turned, sometimes behind them, completely not even looking in the direction they're walking. I can understand people being a little distracted sometimes, but that's ridiculous. You would think natural selection would thin the herd a bit more.

That's a bad habit of mine but I don't turn my head, I'm usually looking at the floor. Why I do that I don't know. So far I've only had a few near run-ins because I spot the person's feet walking in my direction mostly on time, but I always apologize and never blame the other for the startling inconvenience  :bluesad:

E-Mail Forwards! Oh thanks, just wanted I always wanted---a chain e-mail?! :thumbdown: Worst of all I often get them from family. Sure a few are actually funny once in a blue moon but mostly it's people freaking out over stuff that's complete and utter nonsense or B.S. which they'd usually figure out for themselves if they didn't believe every bogus chain e-mail sent their way. :lookingup:

Graffiti.  Its one thing to spray a beautiful mural on a blank wall in an uninhabited building with permission. Its another thing to spray a bunch of crap on a private property vandalizing. 

Relatives who impose too much and expect too much. I'm sorry but no, I can't drop everything in my life to do you a favor even if you expect I can. I don't mind someone coming to visit for a reasonable stay but when someone stays eating off of you for weeks at a time and offers nothing in way of help either monetary or just helping prepare and clean things away, well that's not going to make me look forward to seeing you again.

Reading netflix reviews and seeing the inevitable "worse movie ever!" how many worse movies ever are there? Thousands apparently.  :lookingup: 

Boards with annonymous ratings systems.  

I ocassionally go over to another forum where I post stuff, but not too often cause the board there isn't quite as friendly as this one.  I mean, here, with the exception of one or two people (won't name names), everyone, even those who disagree with each other, tend to be polite and civil.  

Other places it can be a different story.

At this one board they have something similar to the karma system over here (applaud and smite). You get a number rating based on how many times each have been done to you (applaud is one point, smite is a negative point).  Thing of it is, unlike here, you don't have to give a reason (or even your name) for why you're adding to subtracting a point from someone, you can just do it willy nilly once a day to a single person for any or no reason.  

In fairness, you do have to be registered on the board and have made so many postings befor eyou get the option to rate other people's works, but still.  Post an intelligent, well thought out opinion that people don't like?   You can get docked.  Post a witty comment that others didn't find funny for no particular reason?  Bam, you get hammered.  In general, people on the internet are more likely to be negative than positive, often just for the fact that hiding behind a computer screen seems to embolden the Jerk Within, so a system like this is rife with people docking karma simply because they can.

I can't help but think that sometimes the numbers become less about how substainal your post are and more of a big popularity contest.  Say the right things, make the right "friend" and boom you get a big number.  (Neatly enough the forum mods all have large positive scores, but I'm sure that's pure coincidence.)

On this  other board, I've made about 55 posts, and my current score is about -17.  I know, I shouldn't let silly stuff like this bother me, but it freaking does, especially when I leave for several days, come back only to find my score is even lower, even though I haven't posted anything in awhile.  :hatred:

Ah yes, the anonymous rating system (which is the reason why I ultimately decided to leave the web community centering on a certain popular team of reviewers). I personally see the idea of rating a person down without giving a reason as being cowardly and destructive to the whole idea of a community. It's like "okay, you gave me thumbs down...why? I want to know so that I can either avoid it in the future or figure out that you're just being a jerk, but I GUESS I'LL NEVER KNOW NOW, WILL I?!"

I joined in a discussion on another board because the topic interested me, it was an area where I had some expertise, and a couple of the posters seemed like genuinely interesting people. We had a lively discussion going on for a couple of weeks.

However, this was in the off-topic section of the board, and the main topic did not interest me. First off, I notice no matter how much I post, my total stays at zero. Posting to off-topic threads doesn't even count. Fine. I don't care. But then one of the mods tells me, in the nicest possible terms, that he's been very patient, but I've been hanging around an off-topic thread for two weeks, and I'd better start contributing to the rest of the board or get out. Huh? He acknowledged that I brought a lot of good information, got along with people and clearly meant well, but basically posting exclusively in an off-topic thread was unacceptable to this guy.

A few people came to my defense, I found nothing in the rules (which I always consult before joining a board), and I looked around to see if there were any other threads I wanted to post to. In the end, I had no desire to hang around a board with such f**ked-up priorities and left.

I'm with you on that one Andy.  I joined a forum a while back, did my best to contribute, but eventually got banned because of my views in an off-topic thread.   :thumbdown:

It was a forum about self-defense of all things.  You might guess I disagreed on something related to self-defense law or something, but no.  It was a thread about religion, and basically the entire forum was EXTREMELY down on Islam.  I got banned for, essentially, claiming the regular Bible and the Koran both have some pretty awful stuff in them.  And the mod claimed it wasn't because of my views, but rather because I was clearly unable to express them honestly.   :lookingup:  Right, and this on a thread where all the half-literate anti-Islam morons spouting hateful crap that bordered on racism and was often filled with logical fallacies, and of course none of them ever got banned. 

In the end though, I figure it was for the best I got banned as I think the idiots on that board would have driven me crazy if I'd kept posting.  But it was pretty frustrating at the time.

Guys who don't wear shirts in public.  Granted its one thing to be at the beach or poolside.  Its another thing when a guy is in a Walmart parking lot.  These are usually the guys with some lame @ss tribal tattoo on their arm.

Flames on vehicles. I hate seeing cars or trucks or anything that moves with freakin flames on it. It doesn't make your car look faster or cooler, its generic and tacky and adds absolutely no artistic value to the vehicle. I always argue with my friend about this, who insists on putting flames on everything he owns.
Oh and also don't put some big gay spoiler on your little honda civic. It looks horrible and like it was made out of a erector set.
I advise anyone on this forum who has flames on their car or truck to immediately repaint their vehicle with something original and if you have a spoiler on a car not worthy of having it immediately remove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4QrE3ohq0&feature=related

Shu'up: at least the bunnies are on fire.  :teddyr:

 :bouncegiggle: :teddyr: :bouncegiggle:
Flaming bunnies: now that I would be all about.

so, like a hot rod is bad?
(http://www.sunsetclassics.com/1936-fiat-topolino/images/1936-fiat-topolino.jpg)
 :question:



(http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14908&d=1234604989)
Damn RICERS! :buggedout: :bouncegiggle: :buggedout:

Speaking of car decorations, I can't stand people who slap more than two bumper stickers on a car.  I saw one today with...literally...20 on there.  Of course they were all political in nature.  :lookingup:

Nick, you sound just like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino.  :teddyr:

Most of the aftermarket spoilers I see are installed without any regard for the carefully-engineered aerodynamics of the car. I really hate it when they're stuck on the trunk lid where they either aren't going to get any proper airflow or they're going to interfere with airflow. Not like these cars are ever driven fast enough for a spoiler to be of any real use. It just looks stupid having a spoiler nowhere near as high as the roof directly in front of it. It looks even stupider when the spoiler is higher than the roof.

And yeah, growing up in the 70s and 80s, the dinky little four-banger cars kids are doing up these days are a joke. You want a hotrod? Take some of the money you're spending on subwoofers and chrome doodads, and get something with a V8 in it.

I wouldn't put one bumper sticker on my car. I could never clutter it up with crappy stickers that are just going to peel, fade, trap dirt and ruin the paint.

Daylight savings time.  Still can't figure out the point. 

I think it was so that farmers would have an extra hour of daylight to work with or something. Beats me why they can't just wake up an hour earlier (that's what they do in Saskatchewan since there is no daylight savings time there).

My old battle wagon, the "Silver Bullet" (an 88 Subaru Galaxy Wagon) was HELD TOGETHER by dirt and bumper stickers.  One of the stickers said "DO NOT WASH - THIS CAR IS UNDERGOING A SCIENTIFIC DIRT EXPERIMENT!"

Right now, I have a my McCain for Prez sticker, which has held up pretty well, a "Fire Nancy Pelosi" one that the RNC sent me, and another one that says my true sentiments on life:

"PEACE LOVE  ARTIFACTS"

Agreed, but what's even more grinding are the pretentious schmucks who style themselves "graffiti artists" and act like their doing a public service by bringing "culture" to the streets.  If anyone actually wanted to see their art they could open a gallery, not inflict themselves on the public.

People with serious cases of confirmation bias, especially when it concerns racism and/or sexism. You can't convince these people that equality is a good thing that won't take away everything they have; they're not joining/starting conversation to learn or have a debate. They're just loudly stating their unmoving opinion and will (in their mind, anyway) "shoot down" everyone who disagrees with them in the slightest with what they believe are valid arguments (a number of which have long since been disproven by scientific findings, logical thought or just plain common sense).

Again, there is no convincing them to at least consider that they may not be right; they're not open to other opinions at all.

You can extend that to just about any 'public' art, such as the (often VERY abstract) sculptures that adorn many a street corner in the US and are paid for via public dollars.

I'm not anti-art at all, but I do believe art is very personal and very subjective.  I don't see the benefit of spending what is quite often a VERY large sum of money for one-off sculptures that simply do NOT fit the taste of the community; what's 'trendy' in some urban areas is not necessarily a good 'fit' for other locales.

It also seems to me that VERY few people seem to appreciate such public 'art' and thus one could argue it is a waste of public money to create and display it.  

(Aside from a "Gears" rant: I wonder if this sort of public subsidy of 'art' drives up the price.  I once contacted a sculptor to make a very personalized piece for my wife as a gift...his quote was so far beyond what I, or pretty much any middle class person, could pay that I was dumbfounded.  IIRC, it was 5 figures or very close to it for something the size of a paperweight for a shelf in her work office).

This actually came up in my museum studies class. I understand that your average joe doesn't particularly care for art and thus doesn't particularly care for public art. The irony is that the point of public art is to make art more accessible to the average person by trying to show them that it doesn't have to be a bunch of dusty old paintings and sculptures that you'd need a degree to understand in a gallery full of snobs. In my experience, open air public exhibitions seem to work better because while it's right out there in the open where people walking by can see it, they're not permanent. I have seen a few cases where public statues were very popular; these cases never involved abstract art.

As for art being expensive, the price varies from artist to artist and depends largely on how much of a name they've made for themselves. If you commission a well-known artist (in the art community, at least), then yes, it will be expensive. They're used to being commissioned by the upper-middle class (or just plain upper-class) as well as government institutions. If you commissioned someone who's still new to the art world, then they'll probably just charge for the cost of materials (you've gotta cover that no matter what) as well as something close to minimum wage for every hour they put into the piece (it is a job, after all, and these people are trying to feed themselves and pay their rent with it). Of course, if you get someone less experienced then there's a good chance that it won't look as nice as it would if the experienced artist made it.

I don't know man, I've seen some "art" I swear a monkey did. 

After spending some time with people in the art world, I think I've learned something: you can get away with calling just about anything "art" as long as you can come up with at least 3 pages of BS that sound good. It makes it look like you put a lot of thought into it and are a deep, insightful soul when really all you did was nail the receipt to the two-by-four you bought from a local hardware store. Alternatively, you can be genuinely deep and insightful or just have really good technical skills (the latter is a necessity for commerical art, while the other two aren't.)

This one is kind of petty, I know but it really irks me.  Especially lately, because I'm trying to really upgrade some of my skill. 

Tutorials that have you do one things only to say "now delete the part you just did, in order for us to show you this next part"

I was working on a DreamWeaver tutorial last night and ran into this.  same with an InDesign book I bought.  I know its' to show you that there are several ways of doing the samething in the program, but it really makes me feel like the work I just did was a waste of time.

Ever watch the movie Dr. Terror's House of Horrors?  There's a nice part where Christopher Lee plays a noted art critic that goes on about how great a painting is and how much effort, knowledge, and style the artist must have put into it, only for them to reveal that the artist was a monkey.  Then everybody laughs at him.  (Lee, not the monkey.)

Speaking from some art friends I know, if you get ones that are not established, they often make next to nothing.  Often, if you calculate hourly rates, they're working for $2-$3 an hour, no joke - I've seen commissioned oil paintings done for like $100, when the materials alone are probably $40-50.  But then there are ones that are usually easier to find on the opposite end of the spectrum.  

And on another note, I agree with you about public art done on public funds.  I don't have a problem with them spending public money, and I don't even have a problem with it being used to make something not directly to public taste, but most of the ones I've seen are simply garbage.  But, I'm pretty down on modern art in general, and a good chunk of abstract art as well.



This is a true story.  The story makes me happy.  Also, I don't recall if this is the case in the movie, but it was a chimp.  Only everyone calls chimps monkeys for some reason.  FYI, they aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau)

Art critics are often full of ****.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren)

I like his story too.   :teddyr:

I know, but it just sounds funnier. 

You see, everything is funnier with a monkey.  Those are words I live by.  Chimps on the other hand are just mildly amusing.  ... unless you call them monkeys. 


Also, it makes me really happy to learn that's a true story.

Monkeys are funny.  Nostrils are funny.


Monkey nostrils . . . they're freaking HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

You know, I took an art appreciation course in college, and I remember reading in the textbook that was assigned to class (can't recall the title, but i could probably look it up if anyone's interested) about this one artist who put a urinal in a museum piece.  The book explained how the urinal was now NOT just a urinal but a piece of art because it had been taken from it's regular environment and put in a museum or some such.

I really can't help but think, "Bulls**t!" when I hear stuff like that.  I mean, to me, art requires just a little bit more creatively than just yanking a random item from some place and saying, "Ha, ha this is art now!"  

I mean, if he had turned the urinal on it's side, added sticks and cloth for masts and sails and called it the S.S. Goflow, then yeah I could see that being called art, but come on.  

And for the record, I really hope that when I hear about artists doing crazy junk like this that they at least have had several dozen (or hopefully even hundreds) of other "normal" pieces that they made first to build up some kind of credibility and then tried this as an experiment, rather than just becoming famous with one lame ass piece, especially since I know a lot of REALLY talented people in various fields for are doing REAL works of art and aren't making a hell of a lot for it.

It depends.  There are artists who do crazy crap later on, but are actually very skilled - they know the "rules" in order to properly break them.  Picasso is a good example - his early realism stuff is extremely good.  Then there are those who do modern art type junk because they basically can't do anything else. 

Personally, I think art has to communicate some idea or intent to be good art.  If it's impossible to understand without elaborate explanation, best case scenario it's bad art, worst case it isn't art at all.

People who loiter whether it be on foot, skateboard, bike, whatever.   It drives me nuts when I walk out work to find skateboarders jumping off the stairs or riding the railings.   Not only are they putting themselves at risk but our customers walking by as well.  I'm a big stickler on the abuse of private property as you can tell. 

And I firmly believe you should by law be able to lethally shoot people who tresspass on your private property.  Or at least after a few warnings.  We have an issue with people cutting through our yard. 

Public art. That's one that gets me. Where I used to live, there must have been a policy that no public sculpture was allowed to look like anything. Some of them I passed by for years and never noticed, they were so bland, while others looked more like somebody at the library missed the garbage truck. Abstract doesn't bother me, but there's no craftmanship in these things either. If all you want to do is weld chunks of metal together, at least do the welding right. Part of it, I think, is that the people who get on committees to decide these things fancy themselves sophisticated patrons of the arts, but also need to avoid offending anyone in a public place, so most of the art just ends up looking totally meaningless. It's like the s**tty framed posters in your doctor's waiting room, but less pretty and far more pretentious.

There was a guy from my hometown, went to the same schools, who went on to become a very successful sculptor. A lot of his work is religious or large-scale memorial-type sculptures, and his figures are stylized but realistic. He made an excellent point about abstract art. He said too many people are making abstract art who lack the ability to make something realistic. People go straight into abstract art without even learning the fundamentals of painting, drawing or sculpting. His feeling was if you can't make something as simple and concrete as a realistic human hand, you shouldn't be trying to give form to something as difficult to grasp as an abstract idea. I thought that summed it up pretty well.

Funny story. Back in the 90s, mainly as a publicity stunt, he declared war on crappy public art, with the main thrust being against a giant fibreglass intestine that had sat in front of the provincial courthouse in one of our nearest cities since the 70s, when somebody paid $25,000 for it. Wasn't a good example of fibreglass work, much less art - I always thought the seams were sloppy. Anyway, he got into the papers with his attack on "Aporia" (I didn't even know the thing had a name until this happened), calling it a giant turd and trying to stir up public support for replacing it with one of his pieces. The slogan was "Flush the turd. It's time to be heard." Honestly, he and his business manager were having a blast.

I went out to cover the anti-Aporia rally he'd planned at the courthouse. Three people showed up - to defend the turd. Tim got as much of a laugh out of it as anybody, and he told me that if local people didn't care that much about art, he wasn't going to waste his time when he had a bunch of work to do for people who wanted his work.

Here's Aporia:
(http://waterlooinsider.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/img_60591.jpg)

And a miniature of Tim's proposed replacement, "Millennium." Much more inspiring, and even the three people with the "we support aporia" placards loved it when they saw a picture. Note that it is an abstract sculpture depicting the triumph of the human spirit, and yet he can clearly sculpt a realistic hand.  :teddyr:
(http://www.sculpturebytps.com/Miniatures/images/Y2K/Y2K-MINI-B.jpg)

The interesting thing is that the city fire department got together with him years later and raised funds for a firefighters' memorial that is within sight of the turd. Totally a coincidence. It's just the part of town where the art gallery and all the government buildings are. He also did a Canadian veterans' memorial in the area, again with the help of fundraising, so he has managed to give the city public art people want. As far as I know, the taxpayer-funded art still sucks.

Moles.   :hatred:   Damn things are tearing up my yard.

ETA~ When someone uses my Ipod because they are charging theirs, runs my battery out, and doesnt charge it!    :bluesad:

That was actually the joke. Marcel Duchamp (the artist who "created" the work in question, "Fountain") was part of the Dadaist movement in the early 1900's (just after WWI). His whole idea was to get people to ask "what is art?" It'd certainly been labelled as such (after he'd taken a pen name for the piece and defended this "up and coming" artist), and at the time the public was willing to let art critics decide what art was for them. The critics themselves seemed willing to call something "art" if the artist had a reputation or connections to someone with a reputation. Of course...the piece itself wasn't really art. It was just a urinal that guy had found, signed with his pen name and dated, and turned on its side. It's satire.

The idea of questioning the traditional concept of art was pretty much the whole point of the Dadaist movement. They kind of figured that since WWI had changed the world, then traditional art belonged to a world that had since disappeared. They felt that it didn't belong in the new world because it didn't reflect what had happened (whether or not that's true is entirely up to the individual; after all, there are many works that came from the war that use traditional techniques to depict what was happening).

Sorry for the slight lecture there; I had my art history textbook sitting around and figured I'd crack it open to get the real story on that piece. Well, at least what the textbook writers and my art history profs think was the real story.

My wife never charges the cordless phones. We have one with two receivers, and if one of them goes dead, she gets the other one, but she never puts the dead one on the charger. I'll come along and find both phones sitting on the coffee table, one working and the other dead. If I don't find them and get them both charging, eventually they're both dead, and I'm scrambling to answer the upstairs phone. The odd thing is, she has a laptop and an iphone, and is very consistent about keeping them both charged. But the cordless phones are never put back in their bases when she isn't using them.

The Dadaists and the surrealists are awesome.

Though this may not be my opinion, but by placing an object such as the fountain in such a context gives it meaning, and therefore art.  One could say that at least [not me].

I remember hearing from a filmmaker who said that someone came up to them gushing about their film in a Q and A about how they loved the symbolism of some milk spilling off a table and went on and on talking about the metaphors and such.

The filmmaker just laughed and said the only reason that was in the film was that one of the production assistants knocked over a glass and they filmed it thinking 'hey that looks cool'.   :teddyr:

I think my feeling about abstract and surreal art is that it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?

I think even if it doesn't look like anything, art should reflect some skill on the part of the artist. Even a film of spilled milk can show talent in the lighting, composition and editing. And the most surreal works of Dali still show a great mastery of form, colour, light and shadow, etc.

Same with Picasso. Even his most abstract work shows considerable skill and workmanship, and he did quite a bit of realistic painting. I know he could paint, so if I look at a Picasso that looks like my daughter painted it, I know that is precisely the image he intended to paint. I can look closely at the cubist paintings of Braque and see a careful attention to detail, even though the primary image is stylized to such an extreme degree. Actually, the fact that you can still recognize the image is a testament to the skill involved.

Contrast that to a Rothko worth millions that any mediocre house painter could produce in under an hour. But even Rothko didn't start out painting gigantic blobs of colour. I think it's significant that the pioneers of the various radical artistic movements started out working and studying in more traditional styles, and then chose to do something different. Any idiot can declare himself an abstract artist and start out splashing paint on canvas or welding random bits of scrap metal together.

You don't have to paint a perfecty realistic picture of a tree, but I'd like to know that you could if you wanted to. Otherwise, what makes your work more worthy of praise and financial reward than anyone else's?

Agree...  :smile:

In the zombie book that I've written, I wanted to take the idea of zombies stories at another level. The zombies were used as "art" although in the story the killer was murdering normal people to make them zombie art (although there is much more to my story...  :smile: ).

So I've did lots of research and found Dr. George Hodel... Although its assumed because he was never arrested for the crimes; it was believed that Dr. George Hodel has a strange fasination with Man Ray and the Black Dahlia Murder was a mimic towards Man Ray "minotaur."

I can't stand it when I have my headphones at work and someone interupts me.  Granted if it is work related thats fine but usually it isn't.   Not sure why people feel a need to interupt my groove to share a pointless story.

You get to wear headphones at work?  Neat.

Circuses, Zoos, Sea World. Wild animals belong in the wild, not being used/exploited for our entertainment dollar.

I agree with you for the most part. The zoo item is borderline for me, however, only because there is some educational value there.

What you say is true of abstract expressionism, AndyC, but not of surrealism.  I don't think the two can be lumped together; surrealism incorporates elements of the real world but juxtaposes them in novel or impossible ways (like realistically drawn ants crawling out of a hole in a realistically drawn hand).  As you say you can easily recognize the skill of a Dali or a Picasso (a surrealist and a cubist) but you say below that you can't evaluate a Rothko (a completely abstract expressionist).  

I also think the skill requirement is overrated.  If I thought the measure of great art was how well the artist realized the vision that was in his head then I would be forced to conclude that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE was terrible.  But watching the movie totally refutes that theory: it's clearly great, even if the greatness was not what Ed Wood intended.  There is a lot of accident in art; sometimes great artists produce poor works and mediocre artists luck into making great ones.  

The worth of the art lies in the tangible final product; the artist's skill is just one element to consider in art appreciation.  Henry James was a very skilled prose stylist, but damn, are his books boring.  


 

I don't know...I lean much more to the school of thought that declares more or less that while happy accidents are a part of art, a person's style must come mostly from the deliberate choices they made. Accidents will only get them so far; they need actual skill (the ability to decide on compositions that work for what you intend to convey, colour palettes, what technique they'll use to apply the medium of choice, what medium to choose; these things shouldn't be left to chance) to realize their vision. Otherwise, they'll learn very quickly that accidents that hurt
are much more common than happy accidents.

Besides, when a person knows the "rules" of art, they can break them much more effectively than someone who doesn't know them. Plus, they'll know which rules have already been broken and find new ways to break them (eg- people who choose to "challenge" the norm by treating comic book art the same way as traditional fine art. It's been done. There are people who make their living using the same style of graphic art to create stand-alone pieces and comic-style art is starting to show up in art galleries).

@Rev. Powell: I do actually think that from an artistic/filmmaking standpoint, Plan 9 was terrible. Do I hate it? Nope. I think it's one of those rare failures that's fun to watch (most failures are just kind of painful and boring).

PS-Does anyone else think that this art discussion is getting to the point where it warrants its own thread?

Gravekeeper: what you say is true, I think, but it's mostly looking at it from the point of the creator.  My focus when I'm looking at a work of art is to look at the piece itself and its effect on me, and not try to play the game of looking backwards to try to guess what the creator was trying to accomplish and then deciding whether he achieved his aim before I decide if I like it.  I was picking up on (and probably misrepresenting) Andy's quote "it is difficult to recognize whether the artist has any special skill. You can't tell whether the piece turned out as the artist envisioned, or whether he botched it entirely. Is the piece exactly what the artist intended? It might not look like something in the real world, but how closely does it resemble the image in the artist's head?"  If a piece of art "works," I don't see why it should matter what was in the artist's head.

We'll have to agree to disagree about PLAN 9.  :wink:  It's my main exhibit for why I think the artist's intent should be immaterial to our appreciation of the creation. 

You can start a new thread if you want---my suspicion is that this discussion heer will die out soon.  I'm very much an amateur at art appreciation (meaning of the visual arts) and you've obviously had some training. 

You may want to check out EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP if you haven't already (you too, AndyC).  It's a documentary about the modern art scene that  asks the old "what is art" question in an entertaining, if somewhat snarky, way.     

Yeah, I didn't really mean to lump surrealism in with abstract art. Did a lot of rewriting on that post. In this situation, I mainly use "abstract" as a blanket term for styles that are not realistic or traditional. Anyway, you understood what I meant.

As for happy accidents, they work out because the result is somehow pleasing to people. That in itself is valuable, even if it doesn't reflect skill on the part of the artist. And in Ed Wood's defense, his movies do show some effort and some passion. And in terms of cinematography, Plan 9 shows more skill than a lot of movies of the time.

If I produce an object that shows no evidence of craftmanship, effort or ability on my part, that looks like nothing in particular and wouldn't even be recognized as art unless I put a sign on it, I just don't see why that should have any value at all. I think at the very least, I should have to establish some credentials with a more traditional style of art, to demonstrate a difference between abstract art as a creative choice and abstract art as a necessity. If people are going straight into abstract art without demonstrating the skill to produce something realistic, that couldn't be produced by any idiot with a can of paint or a MIG welder, then I don't see where the value is. Even if I find it beautiful to look at, I can just make my own or pay a high school art student (or shop student) to make it for me. Paying through the nose for something that required no effort or special skill, just because it's by somebody or other, is like the Emperor's New Clothes.

The Duggars...these people are f*cked up far as I'm concerned.  They have some serious issues.  If I saw them in public I'd tell them so. I also can't stand Kate Gosslyn and her kids...or anyone else who throws their family on the TV.  Sorry, already have a family don't need to watch another one doing...well...nothing.

You know what really grinds my gears?

People who use texting language in their actually speech. I've got this lady in one of my MBA classes who actually says "OMG" and "LOL." And tone of voice is even more infuriating, because it sounds like she started doing it because she thought it was cool, and it just incorporated itself into her everyday lexicon. I want to scream at her. You can't use the brevity argument with OMG, because it doesn't shorten the time it says to say "Oh my God." She's not the first person I've seen do this. Why?

I can understand the use of commonly recognized abreviations in texting, it makes sense, although I even keep that to a minimum because I cherish communication skills. But actually saying OMG and LOL. What the f**k? Maybe it shouldn't bother me this much, but it really, really gets on my nerves.

On the bright side, however, I guess this person has made it very, very clear to me that I would never want to hang around with her. I don't have to find that out over time. So I guess there's a silver lining for you.

You should slap those people.  You have my permission. 

At the very least tell them they're idiots, preferably at the top of your lungs standing less than two feet away from them.

Vegans on the Internet (sounds like a bad movie title)

We get it. You are super-special and you will outlive us all by 20-30 years  :lookingup:

The only thing worse is standing in line behind a semi-sober religious nut buying booze. I don't care if you go to church every Sunday and I don't care if your invisible god watches you pee.
Just leave me the hell alone or I swear I will tattoo "666" on my forehead.

 :teddyr: :teddyr:

I always write 696 on my arm. :buggedout: also, so Christians were passing out free "books" out by school one day and it turned out to be a pamphlet of God. WTF, IT'S ILLEGALITY TO DO THAT! :hatred:

It's not illegal to distribute religious literature near a school - just not on campus.

they were on campus

The idea that it's per se illegal to distribute Bibles or other religious literature at a public school is not correct.  In fact, if the group is organized and run by students, it's a constitutionally protected exercise of their first amendment rights.  If it's done by outsiders, it's generally frowned upon.  They would probably violate a school policy or local ordinance, especially if they are disruptive.  But some jurisdictions have approved "passive" dissemination of religious literature on public school campuses if regulations are followed.     

My kids bring home church stuff frequently from school. Stuff about their after school programs, summer camp, and other activities.. its not preachy stuff, just stuff from the local churches that the school hands out. It doesn't bother me but it does go right into the trash.

okay, let me clear up- these guys were selling pamphlets on the campus, non had kids that goes to my school, and actually were trying to get people to go to their church.

Irresponsible pet owners.

Yeah, we all know the stories about people who abuse their pets, and those are horrible, but then there's the other type.  The, "Well, I've got a pet, but I'm really damn lazy/uncaring about looking after it."

Lost track of the number of times I've almost ran over a dog that was just wondering around uncollared in the streets.  People, this is NOT the freaking countryside where you can just let your dogs roam free!  

Then we have the idiots that just let their animals breed wildly, and then they do things like put the puppies or kittens in a box and just leave them on a street corner.  DEAR GOD, that p**sES ME OFF!  Especially when our town has a paper that would let you list an ad for FREE so you could tell people you're giving them away and at least then they might find a good home.

I swear, this actually happened, my former neighbor had a puppy that was outside in a cage.  One day, I find the puppy just roaming around the parking lot, so, thinking the pet was lost or something, I picked the dog up, headed over to the guys house, knocked on the door and said, "Uh, hi!  Is this your dog?"

He answers, "Yeah.  Do you want him?"

I'm a bit taken aback.  I mean, here I am stupidly assuming I was doing a good deed, you know reuniting loving owner with poor lost pet.  

I said, "Uh, well, I would, but they don't allow pets in the apartment."  

"Oh, well, I was just hoping someone would come along and take him."  

If I had a hand free, I think I would have done the face palm gesture.  

And I said, "Uh, sir, you know you could list in The Trader that you're giving a dog.  They'll let you put an advertisement in for free."

"Oh, okay."  He said, excitement level in his voice reaching somewhere just below Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.  "I'll do that."  

So, I handed him the puppy and left secure in the knowledge that he'd most likely "forget" to do the strenuous work necessary to make a phone call.  

(sigh)

And I know I've said this many times here and elsewhere, but this really makes me mad because I really WANT to have a pet, but I CAN'T because it's against the rules of where I live.  

 :bluesad:

Ditto. When I was part of a reptile owner/enthusiast club, part of our mandate was to educate the general public about responsible pet ownership regardless of what the pet actually was (cold-blooded animals were simply a point of emphasis because we were all sick of seeing people wanting to buy, say, baby iguanas without realizing that iguanas get really big, require expensive equipment to survive in captivity, need large enclosures, and tend to be aggresive). While we certainly never changed the mind of every person in the country, we did manage to get some people to realize that maybe they weren't ready for the kind of pet they were initially thinking about, or that maybe they just weren't ready for a pet at all.

On the same note, gift pets p**s me off. Yeah, some of them do well, but most of them end up as strays or get dumped on the doorstep of various pounds and animal shelters because the recipient doesn't want them anymore (usually because they end up being much more work than they anticipitated). The only time it's acceptable to give someone a pet as a gift is if they've expressed strong interest in owning the animal in question and have both the knowledge and the means to take care of one by the time that they receive the animal.

Btw, if anyone on this forum is thinking about getting an exotic pet, make sure you do your homework about the animal, that there's a vet somewhere within driving distance at least that's qualified to treat the animal if it gets sick (or pregnant), and that you get the animal from a breeder if possible (helps to reduce the strain on wild populations and if you go to a breeder you can find out a lot more about the specific critter than you could from a pet store).

If they start giving you that, say, "Yeah, I know, there were a lot great people who were vegan, like Hitler for example."

(And yes, that's not hyperbole, Hitler WAS vegan, and more so, he once berated his wife for using a brand of perfume that had been tested on animals.  If that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will.)

OPPS!  Guys, that "always" should ALMOST!  I'm betting everyone already knew that, but I want to make sure.  :)

Hitler loved animals, and had a German Shepherd named Blondi that he was very fond of. You want to really blow your mind, try to imagine Adolf Hitler finding homes for a litter of puppies. He was a more conscientious dog owner than your neighbour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi)

And Hitler wasn't the only animal lover in the Nazi party leadership. The Nazis had strict laws regulating everything from hunting, slaughtering practices and medical research, right down to little things like boiling lobsters. If that isn't irony, I don't know what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany)

People who stand outside of supermarkets asking for donations who don't seem to get why I can't stop while handling three kids to listen to their cause.

GODWIN...GODWIN...GODWIN...

We cannot have any reasonable dialog now that ya'll done went and mentioned teh HITLER.

In other words, people who let raw, emotional response to words they hear get in the way of objective discussion grinds my gears.

Or the ones who manage to get a table right inside the entrance, so you can't discreetly avoid them. Not that I don't support fundraising, I just hate being put on the spot.

Why would the Nazi party put lipstick on a monkey when they can do it to a Jew?

There are many things wrong with that statement, Skull, not the least of which is the use of present tense.

Oh you are so correct...  :smile:

You know, actually, in a way it doesn't surprise me.  In many respects people seem to treat animals way better than they do their fellow human beings.  

I mean, for instance, did you know that laws to protect animals from abuse came into existence LONG before anyone thought to enact laws to protect children?  Heck, I remember reading in a history book that one of the first early child labor reforms was the generous principle that children, by law, could not work more than 12 hours a day.  I've been told that the first child abuse case was actually brought to court by a lawyer accusing someone of abusing an "animal".  After reading off a litany of horrible treatment, he had the animal (a young girl) brought into the courtroom.  The poor girl had been so abused she couldn't walk in on her violation; she had to be carried on a stretcher.

Another interesting incident: a jogger in, I believe it was Arizona, was attacked and killed by a cougar.  Well, some hunters tracked down and shot the cougar, who turned out to have two cubs.  So, two groups started two funds, one for the guy's wife and kids, the other for care of the two cubs.  I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe the fund for the guy got like $7,000 in donations, but the one of the cougar cubs got about $40,000 or so.  

I could name several more examples, but you get the point I think.

Things that are edited for television.  I recall my father always swearing at the TV when the setence came up before the movie that read "Edited For Content".  I do the same damn thing nowadays.

Department store greeters. I just want to do my shopping. Why can't I enter the store without having to interact with somebody they pay to say hello to me? All of these stores are built on a self-service model that just puts all the merchandise out in the store and eliminates most of the service that used to be necessary. So after decades of perfecting a system that allows me to walk in and grab what I need without any assistance at all, they need to pay a guy minimum wage to stand by the carts and pretend the personal service still exists. They can skip the friendly greeting and just have floor staff I can find when I do need assistance.

Honestly, I hate being compelled to interact with people who engage me because it's polite. Imagine how I feel about being confronted every single time by somebody who does it because it's in his job description. I can pull out my own cart, thank you. If I need any assistance, I'll ask somebody. And if I think you honestly give a damn how I'm doing, I'll tell you. Now get out of my way.

And then on the way out, trying to get through a temperamental self-checkout that will not cooperate, and a cashier who thinks it's my fault and hovers around talking to me like I've never used a goddamn debit card machine before.

Come to think of it, what really grinds my gears is being spoken down to by somebody who clearly knows a lot less than I do.

At a Walmart in the area there is this woman who is clearly miserable greeting people at the door.  Remember that character in Monster's Inc that constantly haunts Mike Wasowski about his "paperwork"?  Yep, same voice and scarily almost the same look.   :buggedout:  She's known mainly for her unenthusiastic "welcome to Walmart" far and wide.  

Recently my wife was trying to pay for a purchase using two gift cards.  Easy enough right?  Nope, the cashier at Walmart insisted she couldn't do that when she had done it many times before.  I sat off to the side with three whining kids while this idiot tried time and time again to get it going.  I mean call the f'n manager.  This guy apparently didn't believe in this because he actually handed the scanner he was using to my wife and insisted she try it!   You bet your arse I called the store manager the next day.

Listen, I worked almost 10 years in retail during my high school/college years mostly.  I know the job sucks.  Nor am I'm  not going to claim to have been the best employee of all the time but at least I don't do a good majority of the atrocities I've seen in stores lately.  

Do not get Andy and I in a store together.  We would end up hurting most of the staff's feelings.   :bouncegiggle:

Oh and along the same lines as my last post and Andy's, generic customer service.  The "I don't really give a crap about you  nor your problems but I'm going to act like I do in order to score high on a quality survey my company will haunt you to take over the phone for in the next few weeks so here's a thank you card" kind of service.  Aka, car dealers, car rental places, etc.

Department store greeters is a psychological attack aimed towards shoplifters, in theory the greeting changes the mentality to shoplift because you entering a store that acknowledges your presence. I’m not sure if the theory actually works but that’s the reason why some stores has greeters.

Oh man I gate greeters.  They used to have retarded people doing that at Target in the Twin Cities.  My wife would grab me and make me wait until a (hopefully large) group of people were entering the store so we could sneak in un-greeted.

Oh do I know that one!  Count me in: that really gets my dander up.

Oh yes, customer satisfaction surveys. I once had my bank call me up to ask how they can serve me better. I told them I'd be a much happier customer if they didn't abuse my personal information. Don't use the phone number on my account for anything other than calling me about specific issues regarding my money. Then I hung up.

And on the subject of arguing with cashiers, I once had to mail a bunch of packages for a little craft business my wife ran a few years back. All of them were little, non-breakable items that could go in a padded envelope. Rather than go to our usual post office, I decided to mail them at a convenient office supply store with a mail counter. I put them on the counter and ask to send them as oversized letters, as we usually did. This girl, probably about late high school or early college age, rings it all in and gives me a total that is way too high. When I ask, I find out that she was treating them as small packets instead of letters, and she was vehement that they had to go as parcels, in spite of anything I told her to the contrary. I finally sent her to ask someone, and she comes back, pulls out the slotted plastic gauge from behind the counter and tells me "They have to fit through this slot," in this tone of teenage authority that said I was asking something unreasonable and this thing would show me. I was so p**sed off at that point, I just told her point-blank "No s**t they do, and they will. One of us here has a clue what he's doing." She then got all sullen and grouchy, and muttered "Suit yourself" before silently doing what I asked her to do in the first place. There was a certain amount of satisfaction in taking the wind out of her sails, but it bothered me even more that she couldn't have reacted at least somewhat professionally.

I have too many stories like that.

Skull is correct about this. I used to sell music gear and we were very engaged with customers, from a sales and service perspective of course, but also to make sure that all potential shoplifters (music gear loves to be stolen) were acknowledged. That alone stops a very large portion of what would otherwise would have become theft.

I know what you mean, I've had to deal with a lot of crappy service people in various circumstances.  They don't seem to teach them the basics anymore, like saying, "I'll be right with you, sir." when you're second in line behind someone who's taking a long time, or being polite to a person who's placing an order in the drive through (after all, you're supposed to, in theory, want them to come back.)

Now, corollary to that though, whenever I'm at the store and the guy or gal in the department has been really helpful to me, I make it a point to seek out a manager and tell them by name how kind the clerk was, because I know that people, by nature, are far more likely to complain about bad service than they are to compliment about good service.

Andy, I really hate to say this, but do you ever think that maybe you're just an angry person at times?  I mean, I don't know you personally, but didn't you also say in another post that you hate it when people at social gatherings try and draw you into the conversation?  I mean, do all forms of friendly interaction bother you? 

Like I said, I don't know, just something maybe to think about.

I'M NOT AN ANGRY PERSON, YOU BASTARD! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!  :teddyr:

Seriously, if you go by what I post in a thread about what p**ses me off, I probably do sound like an angry person.

I don't hate it when people try to draw me into things. That's just being kind and attentive, recognizing someone who might be socially awkward and accommodating him. I appreciate that. It's the people who make it their mission, who think everyone has to be actively involved to enjoy themselves. If I've given them plenty of polite cues that I have nothing to add to the conversation, and I'm happy just to listen, they should accept that. Persisting with it is just going to make me feel uncomfortable, like I'm being picked on for being different.

I love a good conversation when the opportunity arises. I enjoy bumping into people I know. What I don't like is when conversation feels compulsory, when I feel like I have to speak when I have nothing to say or risk making someone I barely know uncomfortable. That makes me uncomfortable, only my discomfort is wrong, by anything I've been told.

I do agree to some extent though. I get a chance to build up a lot more steam when something is bothering me, because I don't want to be rude by making a fuss, which just p**ses me off more, as though it's an imposition and not a choice I made. I think if you go out of your way to avoid offending people who do not reciprocate to the same high degree, eventually it feels like they're taking advantage of you. I could almost apply that to Canada in general.

I remember John Cleese explaining the inspiration for Basil Fawlty in the difficulty the English have in asserting themselves, which leads them to develop a sort of brittle politeness over a lot of seething rage. Canadians are like that too, I think.