How about you add a disclaimer to the top of your post? "Warning: Post contains my anecdotally-proven religious and racial stereotypes."

Of course... But to me that sounds like "spend more on things that I think will benefit me/society/my descendants." You can sugar-coat what you say with all the good intentions in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that what you think and what others think could be two completely separate things because they're based on opinion. And the only way to resolve that is by forcing your majority will, or special interest group powers onto the rest of us who happen to be part of the minority.

Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".

On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.

And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat. Whereas the other one you mentioned is more of a race to the lowest amount of funding possible. What I'm trying to say is that it's all too easy to "spend more on what benefits me" because the cost of that is spread across the entire population and no thought is required. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to justify and prove the need for items that require us to take away funding from other items, or to simply justify a reduction in spending on a certain wasteful/unneeded item. And that's one of the big traits of the political system: practically no one dares to be the bad guy that rocks the boat by saying or trying to reduce unnecessary funding. Because _some_ group, doesn't matter which one will proceed to tear that politician a new one in the media. This is democracy, this is populism.

No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.

If the value of the currency was rising, then yes you could say that the "value" that you have to pay off is increasing. However, you can't look at it in isolation. The interest rates will be different, probably higher. Not to mention people will be less inclined to borrow money precisely because of what you mention. It may make a lot of economic sense in a deflationary scenario for people to rent + save until they can buy their own property. As opposed to borrowing + living in the same apartment as they slowly pay it off.

In the end it's up to the individual people to decide what their priorities are, how risk-averse they are and what course of action to take as a result of that.

What an absolutely ridiculous way to butt in your opinions of "stand your ground" laws. Completely off-topic to both the article and the AC comment you responded to when you initially brought it up.

I wasn't talking about the "inefficiency" of the code. There's more to code than just how fast it runs. That has it's place, but most of the time, it is dwarfed by more important factors to consider.

I had a look at the rest of the code. Granted, it's a tad better than what you posted, but it is still ridiculously amateurish... He should definitely submit some of it here.

I never said that. Geeze, way to overblow and misconstrue things to get your opinions heard. I'm not going to bother trying to have a discussion with you next time. Any old idiot can take single sentences out of context to make their point. Good day.

I'm not sure what your friend is really like. But I've heard this sort of rabbid commentary before, and it is really not all that hard to trigger.

Why would we want that? Here we are talking about a welfare program that costs productive members of society money. The poor/dependent classes are just that, poor, dependent and unproductive. You make it seem like we do it to get benefit from them, when in actual fact we don't get anything from them besides crime.

Perhaps you were talking about how the dependent class is easily manipulated to gain votes. That I can agree with, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the "slavery" idea. No wonder I keep hearing politicians calling for it, and my peers denouncing it as unfair as they already give to charity in local institutions.

That is your opinion, and you're welcome to follow it. The rest of us will listen to the actual women around us in an open and honest context. Now take your man-bashing elsewhere, buddy.

The amount of man-hate in this is just staggering. Women and men are individuals, and they live in a society filled with other individuals. We're all expected to grow up and learn to deal with life. That means telling the jerk breathing over your neck that he is being inappropriate. But what it absolutely does not mean is that an entire gender needs to bend over backwards and act shy to not offend the opposite gender. Or for the other gender to act coy and play a complicated mating ritual in order to ascertain mating intentions and to approve them covertly; while at the same time the other side is not allowed to signal those intentions. Ridiculous.

Now, I don't know what your reasoning behind this is. Or how you made the jump in logic that says it's somehow "not okay" until the female approves and/or initiates. Yet, you don't hold women to the same standard. Because if you did, and people were to subscribe to your one-sided and sexist ideas then no one would ever procreate.

Reading one of your other comments now, I notice you seem to think that such actions are inappropriate in work settings. Why? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between pursuing friendship and pursuing intimacy with a colleague? Since it is okay to make friends with your fellow colleagues, which is a social activity, why is it not appropriate to make an intimate one? On top of that, you are not the only individual in society, and you can't project your own personal biases, emotional conclusions and downright selfish notions of social interaction onto the rest of us. Some people are perfectly okay with and willing to pursue intimate relations with colleagues. If that is a problem with the employer, then they need to individually deal with it. If a colleague is being a jerk at work, you deal with them on a case-by-case basis. That means you mustn't attack a gender because you never grew up and learnt how to deal with possibly romantic and/or sexual advances in an uncomfortable location.

At least the random group of people on the internet don't threaten me with guns for not obeying their silly rules like the government does.

Before someone jumps the gun, no I don't mean that we should be allowed to do anything we want. Don't even bother suggesting it as a retort; it's ridiculously cliche.