DiabloFans

I hate our bullshit two party system as much as the next guy.

And I think the part where we get off is that I'm not really into the whole "buyers" and "masters" and "overlords" theory. I've heard it from George Carlin many times (one of my favorite commentators), but.. I dunno. I just started really looking around and I don't see how it could be possible. One could argue that they don't want you to see it because they're most effective that way, but I would still have a hard time believing it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If I were investigating government corruption, the first place I would look, personally, would be the Supreme Court because, frankly, the election of 2000 was bullshit.

And I favorited that video you linked, I'll watch it later. I watched the first two minutes of it and listened to the guy and we carry a lot of similar sentiments, but I stopped watching soon after. It's pretty interesting.

What do you think about the Green Party anyway, Link?

Quote from Umpa

I despise "Oh..The books are better".....Those people can jump off a cliff for their misdeeds. I'm so tired of hearing that. It's so cliche and irrelevant. "Ya, no shit. It's a book." Some things are obviously going to be left out when the entire book has to be summed up in less than 2 hours.

Thank. You.

I don't get it. I don't get why people expect the film to be better than the book. That very rarely ever happens. The book will always be better, these fuckers need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that either they like the movie for what it is or like the book for having all the stuff that didn't make it in the movie that they hold so fucking dearly.

The only movie that I can consider better than the original text that the movie is based on is Kenneth Branagh's adaption of Hamlet. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

*Pours cement mix into water, turns it into a basketball court*

In other news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erbqFQ6GjHM&feature=related

Mine was kind of lackluster.

The only memorable part about it was that my friend and I chilled in a hot tub at his grandparents' house. It's really nice where they live cause there was hardly any light pollution and you can see the stars really well.

And I just got $40 today. I fulfilled the American dream at $10 an hour doing good yard work for a person I didn't even know and that same friend.

I think that I should start a campaign to get people to realize that America is a beautiful country and we should try to keep things the way we found them. I live by a fireworks hub (the Muckleshoot Casino) and people light all their stuff in an area apart from a parking lot where all the stands sit and it's just absolutely disgusting. I think that we should just try to clean up after ourselves when we throw huge fireworks shows (we don't have a scheduled show over there, people just choose a time to light off a shitload of fireworks.

Quote from Daemaro

I'll just leave this here.

I'll just leave this here.

The story of my fuckin' life:

Added a poll just for the hell of it.

Here's an updated feature list:


Graphics

The game's engine is brand new and written specifically for Skyrim.

All mountains can be scaled, flowers can be picked, and tufts of snow can be pushed and knocked from trees. There is an immense amount of micro-detail.

New animation system makes for more realistic, smoother looking character movement and combat.


Combat

Characters can dual wield just about any combination of weapons, spells, and shields.

Skyrim features true dual-wielding -- each hand is controlled separately, and attacks can be combined for more powerful ones.

Players will be able to perform special execution moves to finish enemies off.


Interface

Skills will be increased the way they always have been -- by frequent use. Skills will automatically improve and characters will get better at them the more they are used.

Level-ups will grant characters perks, which can be viewed in the interface as constellations of stars. Each star in the constellation functions as the next perk that can be learned.

There are 280 different perks.

The interface is very in-depth and will allow players to view all items, weapons and armors in 3D, allowing them to rotate and examine each item in greater detail.

The overview map is simply a pan back of the entire world of Skyrim. What you see on the map looking down is exactly what is there in the world.

Weapons and skills can be hot-keyed for quick access and switching between sets.


World

Guardian Stones exist throughout the world that can buff your character. Only one stone can be active at a time.

Any job an NPC is performing in the real world is one that can be taken up by the player.

The economy of each town can be sabotaged if the player is feeling a bit like a trouble-maker.

There is weather changing throughout the world.

Not all enemies will scale with the player's level. Some areas will be inherently more difficult than others.

There are over 150 different dungeons, each one uniquely hand-crafted.


Dragons

Dragons will roam as per their AI and are entirely unscripted, causing havoc as they please.

Players must slay dragons in order to obtain Dragon Souls, which are used to level up their Dragon Shouts.


General

It is estimated that the game's main quests will take players around 30 hours to complete.

As for additional content -- they estimate that around two to three hundred extra hours of gameplay.

The game will host 60 different voice actors for all of the characters in the game, compared to the 14 for Oblivion.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-newark/e3-skyrim-round-up

What really bothers me is that most of the people who complain haven't even played the game yet.

I mean, really, you're taking a book for its cover from about 20 yards away. God damn...

"We couldn't identify the horse postmortem. From our observations, we came to the conclusion that the horse... was just beaten brutally, almost senselessly. We also figured that the horse was well deceased before the initial beating began."

"Alright... let's close up shop, boys..."

Actually, that was from Shivering Isles.

And I agree with Siaynoq that the "courier" quests (which is almost all of them) are total bullshit. Completely stale.

And replies to all of Equinox's points:

1) If you find depth in the multitude of combat systems, then it will certainly add depth for you. I find depth in other places (like environments, moods, ect), and I love winter environments, so I think that I can immerse myself quite fine with just the environment.

2) In my opinion, the game does have a lot going for it. Adding on to what Siaynoq said, the quest now involves you to stop a band of dragons from completely destroying an entire region of Tamriel. That is much more involving than the main quest in Oblivion. Also, the way the economy works in Skyrim and your ability to do a lot more things that add to the feeling of "you're a part of this world and not just a spectator to the tumultuous events occurring around you" certainly help with the immersion involved in the game. I say that's a step up from the poor job that Oblivion did, in that respect. Also, while the game doesn't have spears or crossbows, it does have dragon words that add a completely different combat system altogether; stringing together words to make spells.

3) Last time I heard, they are attempting to make the leveling system more like Fallout 3 was. That's just what I heard.

4) As far as customization goes, there is also more than Oblivion had; the perks (a la Fallout 3), the removal of having to choose your class in the beginning of the game (which was a big problem that I had with Oblivion), their attempt to more "streamline" your resulting character into what you use the most (using a sword more makes you a better swordsman), and just the removal of the fluff skills like mercantile and making leveling up simpler by removing the whole "you have to use these skills to gain levels;" that's what I hated most about Oblivion, you were forced to choose skills and, to gain levels, you were forced to use them. That's a lousy system and I feel that the removal of that system will help make my experience more enjoyable rather than a math equation.

5) Nobody knows how crossbows or spears would work in the game, so it's kinda, I don't know, arrogant to say that they're lazy because they aren't including either in the game. For one, they probably have a lore reason for not including crossbows in the ES world. As for the presence of spears in Morrowind and their absence in later games, I don't know. I never noticed it and I never necessarily heard my friends complain about their absence.

6) I should've learned from the last time I said something "wasn't a big deal;" if I remember correctly, the whole thing with the D3 cursor got people all riled up because their need for nostalgic reminders of D1 and D2. "How can we have D3 without a mouse cursor that is a hand?!"

That's a lot like this conversation is; perhaps this is where I lose grasp of the importance of these little things that make a game what it is. Again, I don't care about crossbows and spears and whether or not they're in the game because I'll probably never use them. If I played D3 with a hand cursor, I would never notice it, but the people who appreciate those little things will certainly get a jolly from that. I think I just tend to look at the bigger picture; it doesn't take a lot to impress me. The reason why I still play Oblivion is because I like it (for some odd reason that I can't put my hand on). It's almost why I still play Diablo 1; I am just drawn to the game and, in that sense, I think that's where the true worth of a game comes in. If a game has the ability to draw me in that much, much to the point where it's hard for me to ignore it.

I'm not as concerned with the little things as I used to be. I'm not going to call you narrow minded, but once I started actually looking at D3 as not just another title in the Diablo series, and more as a completely renovated game, I began to realize that there are things that won't necessarily change the way the game feels as far as nostalgia is concerned.

I mean, sure, it's still a Diablo game, it's still Hack-n-Slash, but D3 is definitely in its own league when compared to D1 and D2.

And the pics are pretty cool. Good find, Dauroth.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Oh yes, making society a safer place is so inhumane. Gotcha.

Making society safer is not one of the "benefits," of the death penalty, nor was it in your analysis. I like this game where you make up a new reason each post and each one falls flat.

Quote from Nekrodrac

When you consider society as a whole, it has much to gain through filtering out those detrimental to it even if the process isn't 100% reliable- security and money-wise. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

This is still absolute jargon that has nothing to do with justice or the efficacy of the death penalty. Further automation doesn't magically create better data, nor does it eliminate the politics and bias that historically made capital punishment synonymous with racism, classim, and political manuvering. Sorry, but this argument has no weight either.

Quote from Nekrodrac

The computer will try its best to be impartial, fair and avoid being over-zealous, I promise.

Oh, you promise, well that clears that up. Perhaps you are privee to some kind of superior AI i've not been made aware of, but unless your computer can literally see events of the past and future, it's in no position to dictate wether or not a person should be put to death.

Quote from Nekrodrac

At this point I feel rather worried that you might have some issues with processing what you read. Is that like the straw man argument you mentioned in that other thread- making something out of nothing and actually using it as a point to refute on?
Anyway to help you-
I said there was no indication I was empathic towards these issues because...I was presenting the state of matters and nothing else. Read, re-read several times if need be. Eventually you will get it(I hope).
I know, quite condescending but you leave me with little choice with your continuous baseless assumptions. I haven't divulged any of my actual feelings towards starving children or prisoners forced to live like animals nor is there any need to, to back up my point.

You're waffling on the issue and attempting to create a "have it both ways," political position on the matter. The point is simple and just as clear as the first time I made it: Prisons can be reformed, lives cannot be given back. Your argument has no merit. No amount of re-directs changes this and I simply pointed out the irony in your statements.

Quote from Nekrodrac

It can be compromised yes, but only by humans who fail to synthesize or analyze strong or weak evidence. The thousands you mentioned are an excellent testimony to that.
About 'barbaric' capital punishment...Meh..I did say that I was vouching for it in a specific context. Also I did talk about hypocrisy(or humanity, whichever you prefer), so I won't go at it again.

I must have missed the part where these magic machines transcended all problems of human input error and had perfect data to work with. Sorry, it doesn't exist, and I doubt it will in our lifetimes. What I argued was never couched in your contextural pleas. I made the, rather obvious, statement that capital punishment is not a deterrent and that it's enaction is tantamount to killing innocent people since no justice system is perfect. I further argued that it is quite ineffective as a fiscal-reform to the penal code since the vast majority of inmates are incarcerated because of minor drug laws that should be repealed for much greater savings. Anyone with a modicum of ethical self-awareness can see just how flimsy the arguments for the death penalty are once the finality of the action itself is considered.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Most importantly- I AM SKYNET!!! YOU WILL HAND OVER YOUR COOKIES TO ME.

Is this the part where you loose the argument and pretend you've been trolling the whole time?

:golfclap:

Quote from Nekrodrac

Affirmative with respect to what? To your morals? Definitely not. To society's benefit(financial and security-wise)? Then yes, since I think I made a pretty good case.

So we've abandoned the "most humane," approach and we're now looking at it from the numbers. I suppose that makes a better case for your argument, but imo it's still terrible. Personally, i'd rather not do the math on teriminating human lives. All the best.

Quote from Nekrodrac

I am not ignoring this concept at all. My proposition comes from a broader point of view- from individual to society/group.
Furthermore you should have read my earlier posts more carefully. A computerized system has all the merits of incorporating the death penalty if it managers to seriously lower the odds (like it most probably will as compared to a man-driven pathway) of convicting an innocent.

Which goes back to my original standpoint- death penalty for repeat offenders.

Broader point of individual to society.. you realize that's literally gibberish. Can you expound upon that? A computerized system? Are you fucking kidding me? How does a computer account for evidence that has yet to enter the record? How does it account for false testimony that may be overturned? It can't, it won't, and that's an awful suggestion. What's more, repeat offenders are more likely to be wrongly convicted (along with legitimately convicted, of course) than the rest so I don't see where that's supposed to be a positive.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Surely, you can appreciate the fact that a person convicted MULTIPLE times for molesting and abusing children has a very low probability of being innocent.
Or a gang member racketing/killing to gain higher rank within his group to then pass through prison and go back on the streets to target innocents again to push further up the hierarchy?
I am not talking about that possible passion crime where some guy may or may not have killed his wife after the woman had been cheating on him. You would think that was clear enough when i mentioned repeat offenders in my original post.

That kind of emotional appeal is what kills innocent people instead of seeing justice handed out fairly. If someone is a violent repeat offender, they should go away for life. Killing them only opens the door for wrongfully convicted and actually reformed persons to be murdered by an over-zealous D.A.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Empathy is empathy- be it starving humans or convicted ones. It is no re-direct at all. It is a valid parallel in illustrating the hypocrisy of self-righteous folks.
Now you seem to be under the impression that I am empathic towards prisoners…or even the children in Somalia? Read my post again. There is no indication of that in any of what I said. Once again- you’re putting words in my mouth. My point remains- most of the world doesn’t care. That IS reality. What I have been doing is merely presenting the state of matters and comparing it to my proposition. You are inferring from your rather biased perception of the topic and not my actual arguments.
Not to mention that equating the death penalty to murder in an attempt to degrading my point was a rather shallow and poor effort. I am sure you can understand the subtle difference between the two, so let’s leave aside the semantics apt at provoking distress for the religious zealots, shall we?

So you're not empathetic, at all. That would explain your position on the death penalty.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Nothing is perfect- the reason why I proposed a computerized system which is closest to the perfection that we are trying to achieve. This in tandem with the complacency and unwillingness of society to invest in prison reform makes death penalty a valid alternative to eliminate the true dangers (repeat offenders). Providing for food and accommodation for these individuals while producing for them other, much less dangerous prisoners as their victims behind bars is I believe a terrible mistake on top of being a financial burden. There is no distortion unless you are letting your feelings about capital punishment cloud your cognitive means to understand the logical precept I am proposing.

If nothing is perfect, why are you in favor of a punishment that is absolute and cannot be un-done? You have to realize that justice isn't a function that you can computerize. It's data from a plethora of sources that is quite likely to be compromised in some way. That is the nature of the beast and the reason why thousands of people are wrongly convicted each year. Much as I can understand the need to cut costs in a poor economy, I think this is far and away the worst method. Like I said before, a massive majority of our prison costs could be avoided by legalized drugs. There is no need to put barbaric capital punishment laws in, compromising our humanity for the sake of pinching a penny.

Quote from Hpnot1Q

Quote from Kayzer

Yes seriously, people need to stop posting dumb topics.

This site is has a lot of awesome high resolution backgrounds. There's one called the Cosmo that looks crazy. http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/downloads/date/any/

Cosmo http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/Dc02d09e/02567_thecosmos_2560x1600.jpg

I think a diablofans tramp-stamp would be a welcome addition to any lower-back.

Quote from Snaks42

Politics. More specifically, people who don't know what they are talking about, but like to generalize everyone under one label.

That has the Tea Party written all over it.

It's nice to live in Canada when I watch US politics. Ron Paul seems decent so I guess that's why he's not being shown in the media.

From an outsider's perspective, most of the Republican front-runners seems stupid or crazy or both? It's funny to me because in Canada we have 3 main parties, TWO of which are left-leaning. Yet, it seems in the US that the left party is at the center and the right party is so far right...?

I like Obama; I'd like to see him succeed and I'd like to see the US succeed. It's good for us all!

Edit: And we don't have term limits on our leader in Canada. If we like him he stays... why not?

Quote from proletaria

Quote from Daemaro

broad spectrum of government corruption.

And, imo, this begins with having nothing but lawyers and businessmen in office. Hence why I thought the Tyson video clip was on-topic.

No, it's not their professions. It's just people are corrupt and like someone else here said, it's never about getting rid of corruption completely. It's about recognizing the corruption and doing your best to manage it.

Quote from proletaria

Furthermore, I seriously doubt nobody in those professions has ever wanted to run for office. Very few people are influential enough to make that decision themselves. People are groomed for political careers by a political party.

Really disagree with this. First of all though, I certainly never meant that no engineer or scientist wants to run for office. I believe there are some that do. I was just stating that most engineers and scientists like engineering and science over politics.

And political careers are different than doing one or even a couple terms in office. The local level of politics, which is largely from where your day to day life is affected is often filled by office holders who come from a wide range of careers. Many politicians who go on to either being governor or senate began at some point on the most local level and built up their political careers from there. Are there other politicians who were groomed at an early age to become politicians? Of course. Is it difficult and expensive, however, to run for office especially beyond a municipal level? You bet! But at any rate, I still believe we don't see a lot of engineers and scientists running for office because they are choosing not to run.

I mean, I get what Tyson is saying. He's lamenting at the overall lack of intellectualism in Congress or any representative government. He's saying that idealism often overpowers empiricism and he is definitely right about that. Even a lot of you people here I find to be way too idealistic for your own good. It feels to me like pragmatism is dying in the U.S. Hardly anyone is flexible or compromising about their beliefs and ideals. Ideals are expensive. Too many people are running around saying this is how things should be instead of trying to acknowledge the way things are at least based on an empirical model of analysis and then adjusting policy based on numbers instead of ideals.

But people don't like the idea of public policy being about numbers. They don't like the idea that they are a statistic and that policy is decided on rates of acceptable losses and gains.

Social security is a good example of this. Mathematically, we have all sorts of methods that would fix the social security problem. The biggest one being to raise the retirement age by at least two years. Today's 65 year old is nothing like a 1950's 65 year old. We are healthier now and living longer. So if people now had to wait two more years to collect their retirement benefits, what's the big deal as of now? Lots of 65 year olds today choose to go working anyway. Or at least they're physically capable of doing so. So even just raising the age for retirement by two years would be merely adusting to the way things are today. And then more would suddenly be paid into the SS fun with much less being paid out. So why is this simple logic lost on the public?

Because I SHOULD get my retirement money at 65. That's the way it always has been and that's the way it always SHOULD be. That's people's attitudes. But unfortunately, no politician is brave enough to risk his career by raising the retirement age. Old people vote way more than you guys do. So politicians aren't gonna piss off old people by messing with social security. Politicians have elections to win. And winning elections is based more on what's popular. It's about appealing to idealism rather than pragmatism. Why? Lots of reasons I suppose. A big one is people are too stupid to understand the logic. We are all so eager to blame Congress and government for all of our problems. Let's take a little bit of responsibility ourselves shall we? Why can't the average voter recognize how healthy most 65 year olds are today and realize that adjusting social security's age requirement is not even about a radical change, but merely adjusting for the reality of the situation today. Recognizing that and accepting it would be the pragmatic thing to do. But idealism will have none of that.

As expensive as ideals are though, for politicians, pragmatism is even more expensive sadly. Any time anyone makes compromises to another political party, they are labeled as traitors to their party. Any time a politician tries to make policy based on what is the smart thing to do as opposed to what is the most popular thing to do they get voted out of office next election. What would make a huge difference I think would be term limits for senators and house members. Then those guys would really be free to vote based on prudence if they're less concerned about that upcoming election. We have term limits for president. Why not for Congress?

Quote from Daemaro

I'm not opposed to a government, I just don't like how we've turned away from the constitution

The Constitution is too ideal for its own good. Even when it was created no one was taking its meaning literally and today so much of its wording is so out of modern context that entire schools of thought are devoted solely to the interpretation of it. Don't get me wrong, the Constitution is important because you can invoke all your rights stated within it and it's done a good job at protecting people. But I also think we cannot rely on it forever as the destination of where all roads lead to in this country. It's just not that good of a document to keep aging like it is.

Quote from Daemaro

sure you get free school, that's good, but now you CAN'T teach your own child without intervention.

Really depends on the situation. Some people have fought against state intervention in home schooling and have won. Others weren't as lucky. But being a part of a society and enjoying its benefits means you also have to pay a price and sometimes that price is the state interfering with your life. You fight that intervention when you can. Other times you have to accept defeat. Any civilized society comes with such a catch.

Quote from Daemaro

Sure you can drink the water, but its contaminated with needless and toxic substances like sodium flouride.

The government's response to this would be, "If you don't like the water we're providing for you, get it from somewhere else." And decisions to put additives into public drinking water such as sodium flouride always comes down to a vote. At least in my district it has a few times. People have successfully voted against it. If your local government did it without anyone voting on it, then I would agree that's unfortunate. To me it would be an example of where goverment failed and your representatives did not adequately represent you.

Quote from Daemaro

I understand that some people are morons and their children would probably end up suffocating with a paper bag over their head before they reached maturity but I don't think we should ALL have to suffer and give up rights because of those handful of people. Same with the new healthcare system they're trying to pass. It would require everyone to pay for it. Even if you didn't want it, it'd be illegal to not have it, much like car insurance, that affects others though so its a bit different. I just don't like how this has become the nanny state.

I have mixed feelings about paternalism. For example, with all the smoking laws now in effect everywhere you go. Seems like no one can smoke anywhere anymore. I am for and against this. I'm against it because I don't care if people smoke and their smoking has never bothered me and I don't feel it's affecting many people. I'm for it however because statistically each year, Americans are smoking less and I think it's a good thing. Are they smoking less because of public policy? Well, that's debatable, but I believe the government has something to do with them smoking less. If not because of the new anti-smoking laws then at least because of the nonstop public health campaigns against smoking. I'm also for it because if people are smoking less because of the government, then this saves the government lots of money on medical expenses incurred from smoking related illnesses; on large amount of unpaid medical bills that the government eventually has to pay for. Then I can be against it too because arguably, paternalism can stretch into other areas that I think should be totally up to the consumer. Like regulating junk food and fast food industries. If people wanna eat that shit, so be it. Even though the medical bills they will also incur throughout their lifetime will somewhere along the line cost the government a lot of money.

It wouldn't bother me too much if the government started regulating food industries more, but I'd be worried about the precedent it sets for further regulation down the road. But regulation can eventually offset costs to the government in other ways. The economy still needs to thrive and there still needs to be competition and freedom of choice among consumers. So it really is just a money issue for the government. State governments are tired of paying for medical expenses caused by long term smokers. The state will pretend they're doing it for your own good, but in reality they're just tired of paying the bills on all that shit. They're trying to save money. This is one of the biggest functions of government. Being accountants. Publicly they're doing it for this reason or that reason, but it is all about saving money because this whole government thing is fucking expensive.

Quote from Daemaro

Please save us from ourselves, pass laws that infringe on our freedoms. It's the same thing as the patriot act. They tell us there are terrorists everywhere, work people into a panic, fear monger, and then people are so worried they practically beg the government to take our rights.I just don't like it. I don't trust any entity with that much control over me.

I'm whole heartedly against the Patriot Act. I also think it curtails many of our freedoms. And it is another thing that makes me an advocate of state rights against the federal government. States have limited budgets with law enforcement and they are expected to enforce such edicts with what little they have. Speaking of which, many dickish things you see law enforcement doing against people are often a direct or indirect result of having an insufficient budget. And it's bullshit what cops do get away with, I agree. But somewhere along the line it comes from departments simply being underfunded and having to either settle or compensate on things that results in bad policing. You may see a cop totally violating someone's rights one day because he's thinking, "Fuck this shit. I don't get paid enough for this." And they don't. And they might get away with busting into your house and searching your home illegally cause there may be a superior of his that is also underpaid and trying to sweep the incident under the rug as soon as possible so he can get on with dealing with tons of other problems that all come from being underfunded. All this stuff is so interconnected, that's why you really gotta discuss it on a point by point basis. You know what I mean, string bean?

If by higher up you mean using more money at a bank, sure. If I was investing larger amounts of money with a bank I also would start getting a lot more careful about giving my money to them. It's just that there are tons of low risk low return ways of investing your money through a bank such as a CD account. And I prefer also to go with the smaller local banks who aren't getting bailed out by the federal government or whoever isn't sending me several credit card applications every week.

All I'm really trying to say is, when we have threads like these criticizing the government or banks or whatever, it helps to be as specific as possible because these sweeping generalizations about the evilness of one thing or another doesn't help when you're really trying to discuss it. I guess at least not for me anyway. Like when people complain about the government in general, that's my problem. Is they're complaining about it in general. People so underestimated how heavily layered and complex government is. And what I see government doing that is at least affecting my day to day life are very good things.

Yes I'm concerned about the bad things too that aren't affecting my day to day life. But at least I'm trying to work for government one day so that I may do more to improve how it works instead of some people who just complain about it all the time but do nothing to change it. And yes, I'll even further acknowledge how futile it is at times to change government. But in fairness the opposition must acknowledge that if not government, what's the alternative? It's an ongoing science. And people can complain about it, that's fine. But merely complaining about it isn't doing much to improve your own life, is it?

And then you got the federal government, the state government, local government and municipalities, small enclaves of civil government, it's just everywhere you look. Americans love government. They love it! They speak against it all they want, but in practice, in daily practice, our government is huge! And we pay so little for it compared to other countries in the world. The problem has become that we want just as much as ever from our government but we've become less willing to keep fronting the bill for it. But it's still there providing you and me with services from free healthcare to free education and to giving you clean water from your tap and picking up your trash every week. Have you ever been to another country? Do you know how annoying it was for me in Turkey and even in Czech Republic that I couldn't just drink the tap water? And I had to pay for water at restaurants there?

Even with budget cutbacks and higher education being more expensive than ever, the federal government just gave me a pell grant and they are paying for my education for the next two semesters. Do you know what I had to do to get it? I had to fill out some paperwork and then wait a few weeks. That's it. I'm just saying that maybe things aren't as bad as some of you think? That maybe you have the time and leisure to complain about the government because something about this country has made it possible for you to have like, you know, time and leisure.

Anyway, I'll stop now. I was ignoring this thread for days because I was afraid I'd eventually get into all this.