5,794 Forum Posts by "IllustriousPotentate"
I have 1,500+ photos on my computer taken from my digital camera. As I found out when I went to do this, not one of them was of just me.
Needless to say, I took a photo for the sole purpose of this. (And no, that photo will not be posted; I don't want to break the internet.)
This is the result, as best as I could make it look like myself. I guess Matt Groening's drawing abilities are no match for my horrible visage.
Yes, I probably would, but I'd feel guilty about it.
At 8/12/07 09:32 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 8/12/07 04:08 PM, Encratis wrote: I live in Florida and there is a very large population of Hispanic peoples who either don't speak or have trouble speaking English.Yeah, like those people who ignore that people is already a plural and add an s at the end of it, creating the square of a plural ;)
Actually, that's grammatically and contextually correct. "People" is a group of more than one person. When you have more than one of these groups, it becomes "peoples."
At 8/12/07 07:22 PM, FatherAnderson wrote: Just a young priest perspective...
FATHER ANDERSON
With all due respect, go hump a altar boy.
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/index.p hp?pg=game
Ever want to be Tom Delay? No? ...
Anyway, the USC Annenburg Center has produced this delightful little game where you get to gerrymander districts for political fun and profit. It's very informative, and teaches you about what really influences the politics in this country.
I paid roughly $400 in taxes last year.
The amount of tax you pay isn't necessary what you withheld.
At 8/12/07 10:42 AM, FeargusMcDuff wrote:At 8/12/07 10:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Lets say Person A and Person B are neighbors. Person A buys police and fire protection, Person B doesn't. Person A has a fire on his property, and he calls the fire department. Person B benefits without paying because the fire isn't contained and doesn't spread on to his property.Could that be different to person A having an infectious disease, going to get treatment and being cured quickly, person B may benefit because he wont catch the disease from person A?
Person A suspects suspicious activity in the neighborhood, so he calls for a police patrol down his street. Person B lives right next to Person A, so he benefits from A paying for it.
It's not the same. Only person A is actually receiving the service (immunization or whatever), while Person B directly receives police and fire protection from Person A's payment.
Excludability doesn't mean that only the person paying for something receives benefits from the purchase--it does mean, though, that only the person paying for the service receives the actual service.
At 8/11/07 05:51 PM, FeargusMcDuff wrote: What do you think?
I think you either willfully or ignorantly overlook the notion of "excludablity" and lack an understanding of what Americans' opinions on state-run health care are.
Health care is an excludable good. If you pay for your health insurance, it is very easy to restrict access to who benefits from that insurance, you and your beneficiaries, and your lack of health insurance places no undue harm on anyone else.
Fire and police protection are different. It is not possible to exclude people from the benefits of police and fire protection. Lets say Person A and Person B are neighbors. Person A buys police and fire protection, Person B doesn't. Person A has a fire on his property, and he calls the fire department. Person B benefits without paying because the fire isn't contained and doesn't spread on to his property.
Person A suspects suspicious activity in the neighborhood, so he calls for a police patrol down his street. Person B lives right next to Person A, so he benefits from A paying for it.
Besides, I don't know of any people that want the poor to die. Most people I talk to have no problems with government handling the health and well-being of the poor, but they want to have the ability to pay for better or speedier health care if they can afford it and choose to do so.
At 8/11/07 11:39 AM, Me-Patch wrote:At 8/11/07 11:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Register, but underneath your signature, put "Under Protest".You can do that?
Sure! It won't do anything, but you can do it.
Register, but underneath your signature, put "Under Protest".
Donkey Kong in Super Mario Kart. He's slow. By the time you get up to speed, everyone's in front of you. And don't bump in to anything, or you'll really slow down.
You want me to write down ten words about me?
At 8/11/07 08:34 AM, Rebbay wrote: What does your country's currency look like? Australia's notes look like this:
Lol, monopoly money.
Our $100 bills look like this. Yes, that's my hand. Yes, that's real money. Yes, that's my real money (or was at the time).
Right now, Daysleeper by R.E.M.
There's also the Principality of Hutt River.
At 8/11/07 02:24 AM, Imperator wrote:At 8/11/07 02:15 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Yes, but you still have to register for the selective service, and your CO status must be approved.You make it sound like the SS is a bad thing....
It's not. In a time of homeland invasion or credible, serious threat to our country, it is absolutely essential.
However, what I inferred from Proteas's statement is the notion that, since you signed up for the select service, you shouldn't try to dodge the draft--if you didn't want to be drafted, don't sign up.
Of course, I'm not sure if that was what he was trying to posit that; but if so, it's misinformed.
Yes, but you still have to register for the selective service, and your CO status must be approved.
Mercury.
Having drops of metal falling down would be awesome--until you died of mercury poisoning.
Of course I 'believe' in UFO's. There's absolutely no question that they exist.
At 8/10/07 05:41 PM, Proteas wrote: Which I don't blame them, seeing as how you have to actually have to sign up for the selective service to begin with in order to be drafted.
Of course you do. It's required by law, and if they can show you willfully and knowingly did not register, you could be fined up to $250,000 or up to 5 years in jail.
My condolences, Mal.
At 8/10/07 12:52 PM, Memorize wrote:At 8/10/07 12:51 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:There have been a lot of studies lately that show that Americans are less aware of political issues and figures than they were twenty years ago. People generally see this as a sign of decay in our educational systems, or something similarly awful.That certainly explains how Clinton was elected.
If it explains how Clinton was elected, then it speaks volumes about how Bush was elected.
Two words: Illustrious Potentate.
or
ILL-LUST-RE-US PO-TEN-TATE
or
At 8/9/07 10:50 PM, AwesomeSauce wrote: I know that this is completely unrealistic and would be suicide for any politician to suggest it, but I believe that a draft would actually be the right thing for establishing security in Iraq, and to take it further, I would suggest that if the US were ever serious about winning the War on Terror, we would have enstated it from the beginning.
Fuck Iraq and the War on Terror. I'm not going to die for somebody's political gain or abstraction.
I wasn't aware you could claim territory at the seabed beneath international waters. (?)
At 8/10/07 06:43 AM, Slizor wrote: I love how mistrust of the Government is something that is mainstream, but mistrust of corporations and the private, unelected individuals that run the corporations is not. Look at the first poster - he thinks that the government requiring broadcasters to offer "balanced" views on controversial subjects would take away his freedom of speech.......maybe I missed something, but did he say he was a broadcaster?
Corporations can't legally hold you at gunpoint like government can. Corporations may be powerful, but only the government has the ability to legally take away your rights.
As for the "voting with your dollars" argument, or the plurality argument (where there are many broadcasters and you can simply turn one you don't like off) there is a lack of understanding that media consumption is a dynamic process that shapes people's views. People don't suddenly, at the age of 40 after having spent their life studying politics, philosophy and history, turn on the news and then make an independant decision if the station they are watching is agreeable to them. Most people are brought up with certain news stations and have their views shaped by that making the continued watching of a station more agreeable.
Of course. But how is this the corporation's fault? If my political views growing up were gleaned and formed by reading the editorial of the local newspaper, how would that be any different? Moreover, what makes you think that government implementing the fairness doctrine is going to change any of this? People don't follow along with what a station says because of the station itself, they follow along because they have their views validated by the station's programming. If the Fairness Doctrine goes into place, then they'd just listen for the hours that their views are validated, and either tune out or tune to another station validating their views?
Take for example, the Rush Limbaugh show. Suppose the Fairness Doctrine is implemented and they have to counter Rush's raging conservative 3 hour show with raging liberal Lefty Gomez. Do you think that all the dittoheads would then listen to Lefty's show and listen to their views being invalidated? Of course not. They'd just turn off the dial, or find another right winger on another station.
At 8/10/07 05:26 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: The thing is that there is only a limited number of frequenzies (spelling?), thus the number of shows are limited. That is the reason to this law. Look at the sources I posted to to get a more balanced view.
Radio isn't the only outlet for information anymore. There's TV, newspapers, and most importantly, the internet--a far more effective outlet than radio could ever hope to be. This isn't the 1940's anymore, where there's just a couple of radio stations and a newspaper.
First off: All bow and praise the MIGHTY CAPITALISM! Of course the rich should have more power than the poor; They are what makes a country work and are of course worth more than lesser human beings.
Great way to avoid addressing the point.
Radio stations cannot be in business if no one listens to them. A recent example: Don Imus. No Fairness Doctrine was needed to get him off the air. People protested, people called the stations, people boycotted sponsors. He got pulled.
Here's a simpler Fairness Doctrine, that needs no legislation, no regulation, no nothing. If you don't like what you hear, turn it off. Losing listeners is much more of an effect than giving 3 hours at 1 am for people to come on and disagree. Turn it off. There is no reason why you need to invoke the federal government to control what you can and cannot hear.
At 8/10/07 12:14 AM, onefingersalute1 wrote: one problem with govermaents of the greater world powers is size. every body diferent but the more people you have the more different they are. theystart conflicting with each other. if in america the south the north the great plain and the west broke up. then the population would be more alike. diversity is bald for government what ever you do sone one will find it bad.
please point out errors
On the contrary, diversity is good for government. A large number of groups of people, all with varying ideas and philosophy, forces a dialog between all those involved to build concensus, while if there were just a large, homogenous populations, those that didn't fit in would be treated unfairly and unethically.
However, larger governments tend to be inefficient and wasteful, because they suffer from diseconomies of scale. You'll find state programs usually function better than similar federal programs for this reason, and why the Founding Fathers granted more power to the states, rather than the federal government.
If the Fairness Doctrine were to be put into place, it should be put only on government-funded stations.
Privately-owned stations, which have expenses, shareholders, etc. should be allowed to put on whatever programming it desires to draw listeners, and thus advertisers, to pay the bills, as long as the programming is legal (i.e. no slander, no inciting riots, etc.).
People have the ability to rebut statements made on radio without having the fairness doctrine. Not only are there other outlets, there's nothing prohibiting someone from creating a profitable, marketable show that has a different view to the issues.
More importantly, you always have the ability to vote with your dollars. If you disagree with something on the radio, write the station and sponsors, and tell your friends to do the same. If enough people agree with you, you can get the show off the air.
At 8/8/07 09:45 PM, Proteas wrote:At 8/8/07 09:27 PM, Politics wrote: I work in the deli. I'm pretty sure that's why they made the music so quiet that it can't be heard around there: Too many sharp things.Not in the deli I worked in, you could hear it LOUD AND CLEAR.
And what was even worse than the canned music was when the store manager would change the channel over to sports on Saturdays so he could walk anywhere in the store and keep up to date on the game he wasn't able to take the day off and watch. I wanted to KILL someone...
Thankfully our canned music isn't that bad; they've got some pretty good songs on there, from pretty good artists (either that or I've just got outdated tastes in music). I've heard (just of the top of my head)
Freebird and Sweet Home Alabama-- Lynyrd Skynyrd,
We are the Champions and Bohemian Rhapsody-- Queen,
Only God Knows Why--Kid Rock,
Three a.m. and Real World--Matchbox 20,
Champagne High, All For You, and Change Your Mind--Sister Hazel,
Kryptonite and Be Like That--Three Doors Down,
Smells Like Teen Spirit--Nirvana,
various songs by the Eagles, Bob Seger, et. al.
No Lawrence Welk, Michael Bolton or other assorted crap.
Of course, there's the guy over in electronics that feels the need to drown it out by turning on a boombox and tune it to one of those hip hop stations that like, apparently has a playlist of 22 songs that get played over and over and over and over, or that just all sound alike. Then, crank up the volume so loud that you can barely hear anything but Beyonce singing about Hepatitis or whatever the hell the lyrics to that song are and hear about someone going to Party Like a Rockstar Party Like a Rockstar Party Like A Rockstar t-t-t-Totally Dude to the point that you've memorized more horribly written hip-hop lyrics than any pasty, fat, bespectacled nerd ought to legally be allowed to, then listen as the bass thumps up until the entire building vibrates with such resonance that it can be detected by seismographic equipment in another state while you sit pondering the irony that if there were to be a nuclear apocalypse you would inevitably be stuck with this guy in some stocked concrete bunker somewhere while he listens to the same hip hop station play the same songs by the same station that survived the blast because apparently nuclear fallout has better musical taste than this guy playing that music every single day over and over and over until it occurs to you that THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE YOU ARE AT RIGHT NOW, only with less radioactivity and more industrial sized cases of dog food and adult diapers
..It's annoying to say the least.
