Or they'll stay in Mississippi and *gasp* display their real company name in their Caller ID!

If a company is so slimy that it would move out of state just to avoid displaying their real name on phone calls, well . . . that's pretty slimy.

I guess that's most telemarketers, but still.

Good to know that you would sacrifice the lives of thousands of people to relieve the discomfort of one. I sincerely hope all your family and friends die in terrorist attacks that could have been prevented.

You sincerely hope terrorism happens? What is wrong with you?

I'm sure you wouldn't mind being waterboared then huh?

"Why are you godwinning me"

Well - uhhhmm - errr - have you actually looked at your nick, lately? Is Adolph a popular name where you come from? Personally, I've never met an Adolph in my life. There's only one whose life I'm familiar with. Godwinned? You probably get that all the time, don't you?

Do you not get irony? She's holing a rainbow flag, you twit.

I think that was their total water usage, inside the house and out.

I don't know anything about Latvia. Here in the U.S., though, you don't fuck with the big banks. They have money and power--which they will throw at your political opponents if you become too much of a "problem."

From the article I just linked to:

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's "buyer's remorse" with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street "fat cats," they may fight back by withholding their cash.

"If the president doesn't become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support," said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T.

Balanced and centrist? I guess that just about sums it up.

Strap a camera around their neck

Oh that's just great! So you'll get a clear view of everyone/everything in the house but them.

Oh, thank God and it's About Damn Time. Not only did someone post something like this, it got modded to "+5 Insightful."

Finally, please God, finally let the tide turn.

I was around in the late 70s/early 80s when Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens started their "Big Lie," that corporations and corporate leaders have no duty but to enrich themselves. When they first started crowing "maximize shareholder value, maximize shareholder value...," they got laughed out of the room. Of course corporations had responsibilities beyond the bottom line. The whole point of giving them tax breaks and the corporate veil against liability was because they promised to benefit society as a whole in their corporate charters.

The raiders refined their argument a bit and started arguing "Maximizing shareholder value benefits society most." (see Danny Devito in "Other People's Money" for a taste of it)

But then Ross Perot and his ilk got their hands around our schools, and a whole generation of kids came out moaning like zombies, "Corporations have no responsibility but to themselves, Corporations should only look to the bottom line..." I've been trapped in this farmhouse for 20 years now, nailing boards over the windows as fast as I can, screaming truth into the dark.

In exchange for the liability shields and massive tax considerations they are given, every corporation ever formed has given us their sworn commitment in their corporate charter that they will benefit society as a whole.

Goid bless you, Man, posts like yours give me reason to hope.

So you're not surprised that "Why do men have nipples?" is the most frequent Google search of all the searches that begin with "Why?" The most frequent one? Boy, people here are more bizarrely weird than I thought.

I can imagine a bunch of Slashdotters sitting alone in their basements saying, "No, seems perfectly normal, dude."

I get the exact same suggested search results. Doesn't their appearance there signify that they are the most frequent Google searches starting with "Why . . ."? Of all the millions of Google searches that are performed?

Isn't that a bit . . . strange, for some reason? You don't think so?

"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."

That's right, because the President of the USA never, ever, delegates stuff to other people. Every single decision in the entire Federal Branch is personally signed off by him, and him alone.

Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.

The summary and the article both say he:

will also have to pay the networking company nearly US$800,000 in restitution after being the conduit for hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of counterfeit computer hardware

At least in this case it sounds like he will have to pay pretty much everything back, possibly even more than he made. Doesn't sound like such a small "risk" to me.