DCEmulation

The Dreamcast Homebrew Community Online
Back to main site
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:02 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:04 pm 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
Oh, so it's more a way of preventing large corporations like Google, AT&T, or Verizon from being able to regulate the internet?

I'm for that measure, but I'm very against allowing the FCC to regulate these companies at the same time. I don't have a single doubt in my mind that they'll overstep their boundaries, and I could certainly imagine them cracking down over time on what they find offensive in efforts to preserve their own idea of "net neutrality". Their idea of the truth will become warped and distorted over time.

Also keep in mind that with regulation usually/eventually comes fees and fines, two things that will probably crush smaller ISPs over time. Even with FCC governance, these companies they're allegedly attempting to block off could easily become the "Big Three" of Internet Service Providers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:33 pm 
Offline
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:55 pm
Posts: 3641
Eviltaco64X wrote:
will probably crush smaller ISPs over time
The RBOCs and cable companies pretty much already did that, unless you want dialup or spotty wi-fi that only covers a handful of neighborhoods. Various smaller ISPs still exist, but very few of them actually offer any form of residential broadband that isn't just reselling the local RBOC or cable company service.

_________________
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:14 pm 
Offline
Blank
Blank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:52 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Minnesota
Eviltaco64X wrote:
pixel wrote:
Eviltaco64X wrote:
DaMadFiddler wrote:
http://images2.dailykosbeta.com/i/user/3/American_Taliban_Illustrated.jpg


Yes, standing up for freedom of religion/speech and gun ownership is the same thing as enforcing one specific religion through gun ownership (and don't even try to go outside of your boundaries within Sharia Law!)

Some might view the Tea Party movement as an attempt to create Christian Sharia Law in America.


Well, fuck anyone that is. I don't see that in a lot of the people I've run into that agree with the Tea Party, though. A lot of people from my area in support of it are small business owners that are tired of regulation. They have nothing to do with the gun-totin' redneck outbursts you see on TV. All movements, especially large ones, have their extremists.

I think the people in support of it are all branded and labeled because of a handful of negative events that are played into the ground.

These same people that are hated by so many on the internet are also currently fighting for net neutrality in the House. Isn't it ironic?

I keep hearing from people that they want fewer regulations from the government. I think the converse is even more frightening. Giving more power to corporations is a complete failure by American citizens. We need a government designed to keep large corporations from undermining U.S. citizens. At least when a government oversteps its bounds, there is always a proper recourse (voting, protesting and revolution). "Voting with your dollar" is complete shit, especially if a corporation dominates its market. I will agree there needs to be clean up from national to state and local governments, but not by giving the country to non-elected corporations. Our government isn't some abstract system of arbitration and regulations are needed to protect our way of life. The key is to provide adequate service to U.S. citizens with proper controls that leave business and government near equilibrium in terms of control.

The Tea Party should put its money where its mouth is. Stop standing on the sidelines and form as an actual political party. If it really supports this country, it should use the proper methods of our democracy and stop feeding trolls like Sarah Palin. I won't dismiss all of the Tea Party's ideas because I'm a drugged-out hippie liberal, but when reports claim that more than 75% of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans (in terms of elections), I get antsy. The last thing the U.S. needs is more retarded neo-con, white bread regulation that leaves its citizens high and dry.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:21 pm 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
pixel wrote:
I keep hearing from people that they want fewer regulations from the government. I think the converse is even more frightening. Giving more power to corporations is a complete failure by American citizens. We need a government designed to keep large corporations from undermining U.S. citizens. At least when a government oversteps its bounds, there is always a proper recourse (voting, protesting and revolution). "Voting with your dollar" is complete shit, especially if a corporation dominates its market. I will agree there needs to be clean up from national to state and local governments, but not by giving the country to non-elected corporations. Our government isn't some abstract system of arbitration and regulations are needed to protect our way of life. The key is to provide adequate service to U.S. citizens with proper controls that leave business and government near equilibrium in terms of control.


I'm more in favor of less regulations on smaller businesses and industry. If this were to happen, those businesses would have a better chance of surviving the bad economy and growing due to the fact that the owners have extra money to play around with. I support this because it would in effect put less financial stress on the private sector, which would allow for more job growth.

My reason for not wanting to give even more power to the government is because I think a lot of their services are very mismanaged and sub-par. A lot of public workers in my area seem to have this mentality that they're the only ones that are allowed do the job, so it doesn't matter how it's done. As a result, mediocrity follows. Before giving them even more to take care of, I'd like to see them do a higher-quality job taking care of what they already have.

I fully agree that we need regulation to protect our way of life as freedom is impossible without it. However, I think the government of today is over-regulating to keep the bloated system going.

And you're right. It's all about the balance of power. I just wish that the power could be balanced between people equally competent on both sides. Perhaps our country would be a little more harmonious if this were already the case.

pixel wrote:
The Tea Party should put its money where its mouth is. Stop standing on the sidelines and form as an actual political party. If it really supports this country, it should use the proper methods of our democracy and stop feeding trolls like Sarah Palin. I won't dismiss all of the Tea Party's ideas because I'm a drugged-out hippie liberal, but when reports claim that more than 75% of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans (in terms of elections), I get antsy. The last thing the U.S. needs is more retarded neo-con, white bread regulation that leaves its citizens high and dry.


I agree with this completely. The higher-ups of the Tea Party really seem to enjoy complaining about the direction that the Republican Party has headed in, yet they vote Republican anyway. I don't know if they're trying to bring the Republicans back to true conservatism or if they're trying to gain momentum from the bigger party to get their own individual party going.

I don't dismiss any specific party's ideas, myself. I look at all sides opinions with the same attitude: skepticism. As a drugged-up hippie conservative who likes business, I have no single party that I could possibly side with. :P

Ex-Cyber wrote:
Eviltaco64X wrote:
will probably crush smaller ISPs over time
The RBOCs and cable companies pretty much already did that, unless you want dialup or spotty wi-fi that only covers a handful of neighborhoods. Various smaller ISPs still exist, but very few of them actually offer any form of residential broadband that isn't just reselling the local RBOC or cable company service.


I suppose a lot of them have been crushed by larger cable companies like Comcast, but the pure and simple fact is that there's still room for competition. Any investment could turn that spotty and small ISP into a more prosperous and innovative one. I simply fear that it will be harder to do things like that if we allow these companies to be regulated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:10 am 
Offline
Jeeba Jabba
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 5:00 am
Posts: 9011
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
pixel wrote:
Eviltaco64X wrote:
pixel wrote:
Eviltaco64X wrote:
DaMadFiddler wrote:
http://images2.dailykosbeta.com/i/user/3/American_Taliban_Illustrated.jpg


Yes, standing up for freedom of religion/speech and gun ownership is the same thing as enforcing one specific religion through gun ownership (and don't even try to go outside of your boundaries within Sharia Law!)

Some might view the Tea Party movement as an attempt to create Christian Sharia Law in America.


Well, fuck anyone that is. I don't see that in a lot of the people I've run into that agree with the Tea Party, though. A lot of people from my area in support of it are small business owners that are tired of regulation. They have nothing to do with the gun-totin' redneck outbursts you see on TV. All movements, especially large ones, have their extremists.

I think the people in support of it are all branded and labeled because of a handful of negative events that are played into the ground.

These same people that are hated by so many on the internet are also currently fighting for net neutrality in the House. Isn't it ironic?

I keep hearing from people that they want fewer regulations from the government. I think the converse is even more frightening. Giving more power to corporations is a complete failure by American citizens. We need a government designed to keep large corporations from undermining U.S. citizens. At least when a government oversteps its bounds, there is always a proper recourse (voting, protesting and revolution). "Voting with your dollar" is complete shit, especially if a corporation dominates its market. I will agree there needs to be clean up from national to state and local governments, but not by giving the country to non-elected corporations. Our government isn't some abstract system of arbitration and regulations are needed to protect our way of life. The key is to provide adequate service to U.S. citizens with proper controls that leave business and government near equilibrium in terms of control.

The Tea Party should put its money where its mouth is. Stop standing on the sidelines and form as an actual political party. If it really supports this country, it should use the proper methods of our democracy and stop feeding trolls like Sarah Palin. I won't dismiss all of the Tea Party's ideas because I'm a drugged-out hippie liberal, but when reports claim that more than 75% of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans (in terms of elections), I get antsy. The last thing the U.S. needs is more retarded neo-con, white bread regulation that leaves its citizens high and dry.



Stay tuned for when the last of the American corporations finally leave our shores.

Regulation is possible without such a high corporate tax rate.

_________________
Image
"He who cannot draw on 3,000 years is living hand-to-mouth." -Goethe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:46 pm 
Offline
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:55 pm
Posts: 3641
Eviltaco64X wrote:
Any investment could turn that spotty and small ISP into a more prosperous and innovative one.
It's not like you can just leave money under your pillow and the Innovation Fairy comes by and gives you network infrastructure. There just aren't very many ways to play the ISP game, and all of them basically suck unless you're a cable company, a phone company, or a major mobile phone network. There's no John Galt on the horizon with a radio transceiver that has unlimited throughput.

_________________
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:39 am 
Offline
The Crabby Overlord
The Crabby Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 9:31 am
Posts: 4011
Jeeba Jabba wrote:
Stay tuned for when the last of the American corporations finally leave our shores.

Regulation is possible without such a high corporate tax rate.

Because these corporations pay so much in taxes per year:
- BANK OF AMERICA: In 2009, Bank of America didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes, exploiting the tax code so as to avoid paying its fair share. “Oh, yeah, this happens all the time,” said Robert Willens, a tax accounting expert interviewed by McClatchy. “If you go out and try to make money and you don’t do it, why should the government pay you for your losses?” asked Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. The same year, the mega-bank’s top executives received pay “ranging from $6 million to nearly $30 million.”

- BOEING: Despite receiving billions of dollars from the federal government every single year in taxpayer subsidies from the U.S. government, Boeing didn’t “pay a dime of U.S. federal corporate income taxes” between 2008 and 2010.

- CITIGROUP: Citigroup’s deferred income taxes for the third quarter of 2010 amounted to a grand total of $0.00. At the same time, Citigroup has continued to pay its staff lavishly. “John Havens, the head of Citigroup’s investment bank, is expected to be the bank’s highest paid executive for the second year in a row, with a compensation package worth $9.5 million.”

- EXXON-MOBIL: The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Although Exxon-Mobil paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, not a penny of those taxes went to the American Treasury. This was the same year that the company overtook Wal-Mart in the Fortune 500. Meanwhile the total compensation of Exxon-Mobil’s CEO the same year was over $29,000,000.

- GENERAL ELECTRIC: In 2009, General Electric — the world’s largest corporation — filed more than 7,000 tax returns and still paid nothing to U.S. government. They managed to do this by a tax code that essentially subsidizes companies for losing profits and allows them to set up tax havens overseas. That same year GE CEO Jeffery Immelt — who recently scored a spot on a White House economic advisory board — “earned total compensation of $9.89 million.” In 2002, Immelt displayed his lack of economic patriotism, saying, “When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China….I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to 5 billion.”

- WELLS FARGO: Despite being the fourth largest bank in the country, Wells Fargo was able to escape paying federal taxes by writing all of its losses off after its acquisition of Wachovia. Yet in 2009 the chief executive of Wells Fargo also saw his compensation “more than double” as he earned “a salary of $5.6 million paid in cash and stock and stock awards of more than $13 million.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:07 pm 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
Ex-Cyber wrote:
It's not like you can just leave money under your pillow and the Innovation Fairy comes by and gives you network infrastructure.


This is the same tactic that Steve Jobs has used for years, though. The only reason the iPod exists is because the Innovation Fairy took it for the Rio PMP300 under his pillow. Of course, he got all the credit for it, though. :P

Innovation stems from the ability to think clearly and concisely with as little burdens on your back as possible.

Quote:
There just aren't very many ways to play the ISP game, and all of them basically suck unless you're a cable company, a phone company, or a major mobile phone network. There's no John Galt on the horizon with a radio transceiver that has unlimited throughput.


There aren't many ways right now, but it doesn't mean that you can't create a good ISP independent of larger companies like that. Sure the companies mentioned have the deep pockets to provide these services now, but what will happen once their services fall out of demand? Can you imagine landline phones and cable TV (both of which cost far more than any sort of data plan) being popular once computer literacy rises to levels in the 90th percentile? I know I certainly can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:57 pm 
Offline
Blank
Blank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:52 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Minnesota
Eviltaco64X wrote:
Ex-Cyber wrote:
It's not like you can just leave money under your pillow and the Innovation Fairy comes by and gives you network infrastructure.


This is the same tactic that Steve Jobs has used for years, though. The only reason the iPod exists is because the Innovation Fairy took it for the Rio PMP300 under his pillow. Of course, he got all the credit for it, though. :P

Why are people still bitter about the iPod? It isn't like Jobs took a shit on Diamond Multimedia's dinner plate, stole their plans and burned down their headquarters. Jobs figured he could design a better MP3 player and succeeded. Diamond Multimedia and the like acted like emo bitches and whined about Apple until these companies pissed their market share away. Of course he got the credit, because Jobs created the first successful digital music player plus a multi-billion online music store. Companies like Creative and Diamond Multimedia don't deserve any pity.

Eviltaco64X wrote:
Quote:
There just aren't very many ways to play the ISP game, and all of them basically suck unless you're a cable company, a phone company, or a major mobile phone network. There's no John Galt on the horizon with a radio transceiver that has unlimited throughput.

There aren't many ways right now, but it doesn't mean that you can't create a good ISP independent of larger companies like that.

How? By wishes and dreams? It requires an exorbitant amount of money to go town to town with fiber lines. Data infrastructure is just as complex/huge as other services, like power and water. The only two players capable of navigating the utilities bracket are the companies already providing it and government.

Eviltaco64X wrote:
Sure the companies mentioned have the deep pockets to provide these services now, but what will happen once their services fall out of demand? Can you imagine landline phones and cable TV (both of which cost far more than any sort of data plan) being popular once computer literacy rises to levels in the 90th percentile? I know I certainly can't.

How is cable internet going to fall out of service? For many, it has become a necessity that cannot be disconnected because of dissatisfaction with the service. And that's the only way a Comcast or Cox is going to lose money — when people stop paying them. It much like "voting for your dollar" when the water sucks or the power is erratic. Never mind the fact that voice services and cable TV are already digital in many parts of the country — i.e. running on the same lines.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:10 am 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
pixel wrote:
Why are people still bitter about the iPod? It isn't like Jobs took a shit on Diamond Multimedia's dinner plate, stole their plans and burned down their headquarters. Jobs figured he could design a better MP3 player and succeeded. Diamond Multimedia and the like acted like emo bitches and whined about Apple until these companies pissed their market share away. Of course he got the credit, because Jobs created the first successful digital music player plus a multi-billion online music store. Companies like Creative and Diamond Multimedia don't deserve any pity.


I wasn't even trying to make a valid argument with this one. It was supposed to be nothing more than a sarcastic remark about the Innovation Fairy. :P

Pixel wrote:
How? By wishes and dreams? It requires an exorbitant amount of money to go town to town with fiber lines. Data infrastructure is just as complex/huge as other services, like power and water. The only two players capable of navigating the utilities bracket are the companies already providing it and government.


Look, all I'm really trying to say here is that starting businesses like these are still possible (especially in areas that lack more refined data infrastructure), despite being insanely difficult to start. It does sort of prove my point that there is already enough regulation in place, though, considering that no one outside of grandfathered-in companies and the government are capable of running lines because it's far too expensive by this point.

Ultimately, my stance is this. I have no problem with the government passing regulation to improve general quality, but I certainly have a problem with it passing regulation that gives blossoming companies at the best a chance in hell. They've already done this many times in the past with several different forms of industry, and I know that despite what I myself say or think, it's going to happen again and that's the way it's going to be.

Pixel wrote:
How is cable internet going to fall out of service? For many, it has become a necessity that cannot be disconnected because of dissatisfaction with the service. And that's the only way a Comcast or Cox is going to lose money — when people stop paying them. It much like "voting for your dollar" when the water sucks or the power is erratic. Never mind the fact that voice services and cable TV are already digital in many parts of the country — i.e. running on the same lines.


Cable companies only have their deep pockets right now because of cable TV rates, which are far more expensive than data plans despite being far more limited in terms of content and variety. With the advent of things like Netflix and Hulu, it's already becoming obsolete.

Voting for your dollar also does one great thing that you have to keep in mind. It gives more power to companies, but at the same time gives more power and room to those who want to compete. If power lines are half-assed, then let the customers demand service, compensation, or whatever they will, and let the competition create a better service.

And in my area the power is erratic. I've been knocked out by the wind on more than one occasion. As for sewer/city water, it generally always seems to taste horrible, so I wouldn't be missing much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:53 am 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Well, it looks like posting that cartoon has sparked a lively conversation. And as such, I'd say it's done its job :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:41 am 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
DaMadFiddler wrote:
Well, it looks like posting that cartoon has sparked a lively conversation. And as such, I'd say it's done its job :lol:


Lol, the original topic died off a couple days ago. It would have been long dead if I didn't include that last sentence about internet regulation that everyone began to nitpick at. :P

Either way, though, I actually like having political conversations here. It's much less an echo chamber and much more a place for intelligent conversation (unlike the other 9x% of the internet). Even though we clash on several aspects of politics and religion, I respect the fact that we can clash as opposites and still have no problems with each other. You can't do that with a lot of people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:58 am 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Eviltaco64X wrote:
DaMadFiddler wrote:
Well, it looks like posting that cartoon has sparked a lively conversation. And as such, I'd say it's done its job :lol:


Lol, the original topic died off a couple days ago. It would have been long dead if I didn't include that last sentence about internet regulation that everyone began to nitpick at. :P

Either way, though, I actually like having political conversations here. It's much less an echo chamber and much more a place for intelligent conversation (unlike the other 9x% of the internet). Even though we clash on several aspects of politics and religion, I respect the fact that we can clash as opposites and still have no problems with each other. You can't do that with a lot of people.


The most successful forum I've in managing to maintain both a highly active user base and a persistent sense of friendship and congeniality (without significant infighting) was only able to accomplish this by having an outright ban on political discussions. I think we'd all agree that's not the ideal course of action.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:02 am 
Offline
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:55 pm
Posts: 3641
Eviltaco64X wrote:
Look, all I'm really trying to say here is that starting businesses like these are still possible (especially in areas that lack more refined data infrastructure), despite being insanely difficult to start. It does sort of prove my point that there is already enough regulation in place, though, considering that no one outside of grandfathered-in companies and the government are capable of running lines because it's far too expensive by this point.
It's not just about expense, it's the fact that you don't own the land you're running the cables through. That's why this is all government-regulated: you have to tear up sidewalks and streets, bury cable in peoples' land, and so on. It's a utility. It probably wouldn't exist at all if the government didn't step in and grant easements for it.

Quote:
Cable companies only have their deep pockets right now because of cable TV rates, which are far more expensive than data plans despite being far more limited in terms of content and variety. With the advent of things like Netflix and Hulu, it's already becoming obsolete.
The incumbent ISPs are trying to set things up so that providers like Netflix and Hulu have to pay them in order for their customers to be allowed to access them without being throttled or hitting usage caps.

_________________
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:24 pm 
Offline
DCEmu Cool Poster
DCEmu Cool Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:12 pm
Posts: 1070
Very true. It would be impossible to run lines without the government, but at the same time it's insanely difficult for anyone else outside of those rooted companies to actually make money and get around the government's requirements at the same time (or, in order to be 'up to code', you would have needed to have been there before the 'code' itself existed). It's not necessarily a bad thing, though. In terms of electricity (despite the rare outage), cable, and internet, I'm quite satisfied.

Quote:
The incumbent ISPs are trying to set things up so that providers like Netflix and Hulu have to pay them in order for their customers to be allowed to access them without being throttled or hitting usage caps.


Damn, I had no clue of that. I get internet through a smaller cable company that has yet to censor anything or put usage caps in place.

Large ISPs are greedy sons of bitches, no doubt. I honestly don't care about the quality of the connection if there's going to be any sort of restrictions that are punishable by fees if broken. I guess a lot of their customers are people that want cheap internet to access Facebook and their e-mail.

It's possible to limit the power of these companies without relying on the FCC, though. The same goal could be achieved in a much more permanent way through legislation that limits the control that these mega-corporations have. If they were incapable of damaging net neutrality, then there would be no need to give the power of up-keeping it to the FCC. It sounds more or less like the government just wants general control, and the FCC is already so anxious to get started regardless of the opinions of several Americans thanks to a small loophole in a Web 1.0-era bill that barely pertains to the internet. They're dancing on a gray area that's not in the interest of us at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:59 pm 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Former Senator Alan Simpson, trying to explain why we need to cut Social Security benefits:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
Blank
Blank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:52 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Minnesota
DaMadFiddler wrote:
Image


I'm :D at the joke to hide the commiserating pain I feel for those who just want a legal relationship, whether it be +&+, -&- or -&+.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:35 am 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Well, credit where credit is due--I got this from |darc|, who posted it on Facebook... don't know whom he reposted it from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
Team Screamcast
Team Screamcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:17 am
Posts: 7609
Location: San Francisco, CA
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group