No. The fun one was when someone put a database transaction locked inside a message box.

The problem is VB6 as a language has a fuckton of problems and might as well encourage bad programming practices. Classes are half-assed. They don't have valid constructors. You cannot make child classes. There is no concept of virtual classes, no interfaces and no abstract classes. String usage encourages you to just keep concatenating, inflaming memory bandwidth, and has no standard library "StringBuilder". (It can be made, as the Mid$ function can act as something of a pointer, but a beginner programmer won't know that.) Threading is EXTREMELY hard to use. There is no 64-bit integer. It doesn't play well with various databases because of a lack of built-in types, as it's still a 16-bit language at heart. It cannot make 64-bit executables and is therefore limited to 2 (or 3) gigabytes of memory.

There are so many more things I could list but this is what comes to mind immediately.

And finally, fuck ActiveX to the ends of the motherfucking Earth and back. I hate this technology so much and the god damn useless error messages it produces when things go wrong. Even if you use manifest files to remove the need to register dlls.

Not to let them off the hook, but Blizzard isn't the only one. Rubio is making an example of them for whatever reason (probably because the game industry doesn't stuff their fucking pockets enough) but you also need to take a shit on the NBA and FIFA and I forget whatever other companies did similar bullshit self-censoring.

It's not fair to put all the heat on Blizzard. I'm not a fan of what they did but don't forget the other companies. China's government is a piece of shit and is abusing their position. I wish companies around the world would finally take a stand against them. I don't have the power to do shit against them.

Do you play Starcraft, by chance? I played with someone who talked like you.

Anonymous coward. Excuse me if I don’t take you seriously.

That's what happens when reality tends to lean to the left.

I believe he just tried to point out that the stock market doing well is not indicative of the economy doing well.

Anonymous coward.

Voter fraud is shockingly rare in the US. Election fraud, as we found out, is shockingly prevalent. Texas voted for Beto. Cruz stole that one due to voter roll purges. And other states join Texas in purges. My own state made me sad, New York, in doing purges.

Only one party of people has been found to commit voter fraud. Republicans. Some trying to vote twice for the fat orange fuck.

...

I have issue with your entire post but I’m only going to point out one thing.

This should never have been about sides. The US at this point is fighting to stay a fucking Democracy because one party has been pushing fascism in full force the past 2 years and subtly the past 30. Fuck all the politicians who have been pushing division politics. It is unhealthy. It is not sustainable. We will become authoritarian or a religious shithole before long.

Are you serious? Those things are supported by the majority.

And the problem with the Founding Fathers is 1) they’re dead and we can’t get their opinion and 2) they wanted the Constitution to change over time and it barely has. It hardly matters what they would have wanted all these years later.

One of the (many) problems we have is a lot of fucking sociopaths in power.

McConnell: check.
Trump: check.
Paul Ryan: check.
WIlliam Barr: check.
Mercers: probably the whole damn family.
Koch Brothers: sure as hell check, if the "I want my fair share -- and that's all of it." quote is to be believed.

These people belong in therapy for lack of empathy, not in government.

That's also bullshit. Hear me out.

With the current setup, low-population states have more control over the Senate. This usually means more rural states. So, rural states have more power over urban states in one of the houses of congress. So, a minority of the US has control over the majority.

If we were to make the Senate work like the House, high-population states would have more control. Guess what? This flips, obviously. A majority of the US has control over the rest.

And guess what? In the past couple of elections, Republicans should have taken neither the presidency nor control of the House. You know why? That's exactly how the votes went. The US as a whole didn't want want the Republican party to take anything. Why should low-population states have control over the larger ones? If you make senators regional across state lines, there will be more senators for higher-population areas.

Should this really change? I refuse to answer that at this time. The problem isn't so much the setup of the senate. One party has been actively attacking the system for a long time and no one has noticed until the fat orange fuck in the White House.

And I ask: why does a minority of the US have control over a majority? This boils down to two problems: gerrymandering and a party corrupt enough to not give a fuck about the people who voted for them, that also seems to have a problem with allowing people to vote freely. As for gerrymandering, yep, both parties do it. Unfortunately, there's ample evidence pointing to Republicans going to all-out war with the concept. REDMAP is a thing. Google that. I mentioned 41-59. Or something. In North Carolina. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. Voter ID laws also fall under this same bullshit. A federal judge ruled that some of those "targeted African Americans with surgical precision" in I forget which state. Why does one party seem to want to prevent people from voting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why the fuck does this video exist? He's admitting that the less people vote, the more Republicans win. This is because the people least likely to vote are minorities. Because they become impoverished. Because they get sent to jail. Because voter ID laws target them. Because less polling places exist. Because wait times go up. Because they can't take off work to go vote. Because they can't afford to take a day off. Because they can't drive there themselves. Because the bus or other transportation costs too much. Quite simply, the Republican party doesn't want them to vote. I walked my ass into a polling place in November 2016 and didn't wait at all. I live in a good neighborhood. There were videos of lines down a fucking block. Eight hour waits. They shut down polling places for no good reason. The 2016 election set a participation record. It would have been even more astounding if Republicans weren't attacking voting rights.

If we solve the voting problems, one party will lose control for a long time. And it should, because it stopped representing the people a long fucking time ago.

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." This is EXACTLY what is happening. The party is becoming irrelevant in the face of people recognizing the party is corrupt as fuck, is ignoring them, and the party at large is has abandoned the democratic process.

Do I sound pissed? You're damn right. Why the fuck is one party holding the country hostage when the people have clearly voted against it?

As others have said, I'm going to point out that most of what you said is outright garbage.

I'm also going to point out that due to the way the Senate in the US is laid out, the members in the Senate likely do not represent the will of the populace as accurately as they should. Your final paragraph -- especially, "they are even more the voice of the people" is a bunch of bullshit.

California and New York are large. Between them they get four senators. Combined, they are 8 times the size of Kentucky and Kansas, who also get 4 senators between them. And let's remember the House, which has been gerrymandered to fuck and back in certain states, like North Carolina, where despite losing with a vote of something like 41% to 59%, Republicans still got over half the representatives. How fucked up is that?

No, I'd argue both houses of Congress do not represent the will of the people. My last piece of evidence? Several polls have stated over 80% of the US population wants the Mueller report released. One senator from Kentucky denied it. And 50 other senators, who could kick that asshole out, remain silent. I believe it requires less than 30 of them to replace him as Senate Majority Leader.

Half of the Senate, which clearly does not represent half of the US population, is holding the majority of the US population hostage by refusing to do anything. Blame rests on Mitch McConnell for being a complicit twat, but more blame rests on those silent Republican senators for letting him get away with it.

Realize this -- I assume you already do and are just a troll -- and you will realize that no matter what Obama did, the Republican senators would simply do the opposite because their goal is not to legislate. Their goal is to give their donors money. Opposing the rule of the party, who still to some degree still rules in good faith, and convincing people to abandon them through fear and hate is one of their ways to stay in power so they can keep swimming in your money. Keep giving it to them. It's not yours, anyway, according to some of them.

I would argue some of this is wrong.

Your grandparents had:
- greater economic opportunity under the assumption that wages were higher in relation to inflation at the time than they are now
- easier access to medical attention under the assumption that premiums were lower, barring the fact that a nationwide health insurance market didn't exist back then

As to the rest of your first list, it's virtually impossible to say that they had:
- more personal freedom: what does this even mean?
- less mental illness: lots of problems were unknown or not talked about, such as suicide rates and depression
- much stronger families: are you referring to gay and lesbian families? I would argue as the LGBTQ lifestyles become more accepted those individuals will have much more stable mental health and have much stronger families, as opposed to fucking parents who disown them
- much healthier food: are you referring to the prevalence of places like McDonalds? It's been studied that healthier food tends to cost more, something that may be out of the reach of poorer families, thus they tend to eat less healthy and have more health issues. Greater economic opportunity plays into this.

They certainly didn't have:
- cleaner air, because now there are more laws surrounding pollution, as more states/countries work to get rid of gas cars and other sources of pollution. New York City used to be full of smog. It's not now.

I forgot to mention. The current FCC is run by a huge asshole, Ajit Pai, who is basically pro-business and anti-consumer.