Blarghagh

Put the cards in a box. Or buy crap and a put a card in with it. I do that a lot. Lots of people think just a gift card is too impersonal, but pair it up with a dollar store snowglobe? You went the extra mile! Or for cash, make it funny. All change in a diaper filled with smushed up chocolate cake. Coins in a block of quick drying cement and add a tiny hammer and chisel. Put in an ornately decorated jewelry box and when they open it, just a bill of cash. The effort and laughs will make people forgive a lot.

The irony is the people want the "government" to help the homeless. This usually comes from the misguided notion that nothing ever happens except when the "government" does it. But instead of helping the homeless the government hurts them by shutting down the people who actually ARE helping them. And I might add, doing it in such a way that costs the tax payer nothing. Still not sure how that's ironic. Terrible, maybe. Ironic, though? The irony is the thing that people seem to think is there to "help" does the opposite of helping. Yes, it sucks that the people who should be helping aren't doing so and in fact are stopping people from doing so. The people saying the government should do something, but it doesn't? Awful. That government is clearly crapping the bed and not serving the people as it should be. It really sucks that the government keeps telling people what they can't do and should leave to the government when they don't do it itself. It's terrible. It sucks. The government which is clearly run by the wrong people, and if people want the government to do something about the homeless they should surely vote for people who have that as a part of their platform next time to rectify this situation. But... well.... If the government DID take an initiative to deal with the homeless and in doing so actually created more homeless and create a larger barrier for them to stop being homeless, now that would be ironic. But since they're not dealing with the homeless, and just being terrible jerks to people who are, then they're just terrible. Now, a country that wants the government to do something about the homeless and proceeding to vote Trump into office, THAT's ironic.

That movie was worth it simply for the moment of that one dude's heroic sacrifice getting entirely kong-blocked.

That was cool. Just goes to show that the kneejerk reaction isn't always the best.

The irony is the people want the "government" to help the homeless. This usually comes from the misguided notion that nothing ever happens except when the "government" does it. But instead of helping the homeless the government hurts them by shutting down the people who actually ARE helping them. And I might add, doing it in such a way that costs the tax payer nothing. Still not sure how that's ironic. Terrible, maybe. Ironic, though?

Irony is that people think the government should do something about the homeless instead of them shutting down people trying to help the homeless?

Seems like bad advice when tailored to achieving a goal that includes having kids.

Actually, those things are gambling. They just fall under non-regulated gambling. As far as I'm aware, anyway. Not sure how it works everywhere. I'd compare it more to, say, booster packs for a TCG. That being said, most of those are non-regulated because they generally offer things of equal value (ignoring emotional value, anyway) and loot boxes often don't. Even booster packs generally have set rules of "will contain so and so amount of cards of this, this and this predetermined value mode like common or rare". Loot boxes generally do not. It's more like you pay some and get some but really are gambling on a higher value payout. Besides that, other key differences are that most games also offer the same boxes as rewards for skill or gametime, meaning that it's possible not to pay at all, and the contents of a reward pack (booster pack, blind collectible toys) is not pre-determined before purchase but randomly generated at the moment of purchase. Varies per game, naturally, and these things are certainly not all arguments to classify it as illegal gambling. But Battlefront in particular certainly took it far enough to examine that question, especially with their connection progression based competition and famous IPs like Star Wars.

I'm sure we would if every time someone tried they didn't get crapped on "for trying to decide for everyone else what they need".

Hah! Brought this on yourself, game industry. Self-regulate before the government does it for you - you used to know this lesson.

Ugh, the longer this discussion goes on the louder I hear Craig T. Nelson echo in my ears. (Numbers man posted while I was writing, pretend this is in direct response to Guard Dog.) Competition in itself implies level playing field. Take this current FCC kerfuffle. Yes, deregulation would make it more "free". It'd also cause oligarchies and destruction of market competiton in many more sectors than just the ISP sector and clearly is a product not of a desire for freedom but of market collusion. Any true and fair competition requires arbitration, equal equipment, etc. The reason people don't take "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" seriously anymore is because we're increasingly aware that some people start closer to the finish (wealth, lineage), use performance enhancing drugs (fraud, crime) and people have grown so accustomed to it that they're not even willing to consider that maybe it's not only their hard work but maybe in addition to that also having an advantage from the get-go. And then a bunch of those people try to bribe, change or outright remove arbitration based on their experience. Right now everyone from the amateur teams to the special olympics team and the elementary school gym class are lumped into the championship league and most of the injured players aren't even allowed to leave the field. That "competition" sounds rigged to me. Competition requires a level playing field and proper arbitration. And yeah, duh, having that utopic perfectly level field or perfect arbitration is impossible on a global level and probably even a local political level, but right now we don't have anything even close - especially the United States. I'd wager the lack of proper arbitration made it harder for you to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" rather than easier - in fact, I think you know that because you despise the arbitration that did so. But your solution isn't fixing it, but removing it? Arbiters didn't notice it when you took a hit to the chin, so they shouldn't pay attention that the quarterback doesn't cold**** that disabled kid in the wheelchair either? All respect to you, Guard Dog, I truly believe you worked hard, made smart decisions and damn well fought for where you are. Hats off, I'm often in fact inspired by you. But ask yourself, would you have gotten anywhere near that if you had been born and raised an African child soldier? You'd have to have done a crapload more pulling up on those bootstraps. How is it you can't see the impact of interpersonal differences on a smaller scale? As for "getting lined up and shot", I'd wager that nobody will argue that the communist boogie-man countries ever had a fair competition. It doesn't get that far until enough people lost and decided to destroy the field, and I'm pretty sure most of your political solutions would edge the US closer to that happening. EDIT: On a COMPLETELY different note: "IT WAS ME! Too bad! WAAAAAAAAAH!" - The 45th President of the United States of America, Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. "Your demeanor is that of a pouty child."

I'll raise you one. Met him, spoke to him, got his autograph and a big ol' hug. Super nice guy.

No, in those countries poverty is a driving factor because more children is more people working for the family and taking care of you when you're old. Those seem somewhat selfish reason to have children to me.

It's about the closest thing we will get to a (real) DungeonKeeper 3. It's also buggy, tuned for competitive multiplayer instead of the campaign and not nearly as charming.

Well, there goes my go-to example for what I've accomplished.

As my name suggests, I'm unbiased. Blunder is an objective observation. -this was sarcasm-

So what's the deal with airplane food?

On the note of actual human neat, refreshing this thread.

You know the drill. Blog away.

Brb, refreshing thread

Argue about flat tax vs progressive tax and Trump's latest blunders here. Enjoy. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum.

Refresh coming up.

Says the guy who just proposed 85% tax... On multi-million dollar inheritances after the first million. Not on all income! Guard Dog's flat 15% income tax is going to reach in and grab a LOT more straight from your pocket than Ben's "socialist utopia" you fear so much ever would.

If governed society and monetary regulation stops working then all that green paper you worked so hard for doesn't mean anything. The value of money exists because society makes it exists and therefore society is responsible for the problems it causes. Accepting the value of your hard earned money is a tacit agreement to support the way society works and the issues that come with this society-wide agreement to define worth in paper and numbers become at least to an extent your responsibility as a participant of that society. Don't like it, go live in the woods and trade acorns for toilet paper.