It's Personal...

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:28 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:yeah. What's wrong with having a cock and wearing nail polish?
The wearing nail polish part. It's ugly, and no one should do it.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:34 pm

10 points for Gryffindor!

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:58 pm

Catharz, that's priceless!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:09 pm

I'm not sure if you were playing along or mocking me, but in either case. That is epically hilarious.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:46 am

So much of the internet can be summed up with that pic.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:38 am

Catharz just won the internet.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:41 am

I am going to have to find a chance to use that.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:02 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:yeah. What's wrong with having a cock and wearing nail polish?
The wearing nail polish part. It's ugly, and no one should do it.

I know a couple of major league baseball catchers who do it (but they tend to use white polish).

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:08 pm

tzor wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:yeah. What's wrong with having a cock and wearing nail polish?
The wearing nail polish part. It's ugly, and no one should do it.
I know a couple of major league baseball catchers who do it (but they tend to use white polish).

Is it to help prevent broken nails, or some other reason?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:44 am

It helps the pitcher to see signals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vUhSYLRw14

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:54 am

tzor wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:yeah. What's wrong with having a cock and wearing nail polish?
The wearing nail polish part. It's ugly, and no one should do it.
I know a couple of major league baseball catchers who do it (but they tend to use white polish).

I've worn it clubbing. and not just black, I wore a sparkly green one time. usually I'm too lazy or bound by shit to wear it at other times... I think my work actually specifically prohibits it.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:57 pm

I seriously just spent two hours turning my white board into a calendar... Only to discover that my dry-erase markers have all mysteriously disappeared or ceased working.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:33 am

I cannot file my taxes until January 6th. I am seriously hoping that we will receive all paperwork promptly because I can't wait to file. Our return should cover our rent, and the trip to California for my sister's wedding in April.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:00 pm

Ah, the joy of a system where so many people are so glad for the government to generously, generously, give even a small portion of the people's money back to the people.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:22 pm

The government usually gives most of it back, Doom, just in the form of police, schools, roads, libraries, national defense, etc. etc.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:39 pm

Most? Heh. The feds don't pay my police (even if they were worth it), schools (even if they were worth it), most roads, most libraries, and quite a number of folks have some deep concerns about how well our money is being spent on 'national defense', even if it was worth it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:10 pm

Doom wrote:Most? Heh. The feds don't pay my police (even if they were worth it), schools (even if they were worth it), most roads, most libraries, and quite a number of folks have some deep concerns about how well our money is being spent on 'national defense', even if it was worth it.

Yes, they do. Maybe you are lucky enough to live in a really great state, the type that pays almost half of their own road construction fees. But odds are good that the federal government pays for 75% of the roads you state government claims to pay for, and all your libraries, and a pretty huge chunk of your schools and police too.

Oh right, except that you are apparently rich and can afford to send your kids to private school... So the government still funds your school, even as you deduct from your taxes for not attending a public school, because it's important to you that people with more money get a better education than those filthy plebeians.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:57 pm

I just started my vacation and found out we have an offer on our house! It's been on the market for six months, and we took it off three days ago, figuring we'd put it up again in the spring, so we wouldn't have to move in the winter. Now we need to start looking for a new house!

Aaah!

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:58 am

Ah, Kaelik, Kaelik, Kaelik.

Actually, many people are ignorant of these things as well, so allow me to back up the fairly obvious stuff I'm saying with links:

Here's a link showing 96% of funding in Pennsylvania public schools was non-Federal. Can you show me a state where public education is mostly funded by Federal funds?

http://www.uasd.k12.pa.us/SchoolFunding ... unding.pdf

The idea that federal funds are part of funding for state/municipal police departments is so bizarre I'm not sure how to disprove it...obviously state workers are paid for by the state, whoever is signing your paycheck is your boss, after all. I can find many articles on a state governor looking for more ways to fund the police (eg, http://republicanherald.com/news/fundin ... -1.1026398), but at no point is "ask the feds for money" listed as an option, because that would make no sense outside of general bailouts. Can you back your strange assertion in some legitimate way?

Even police officers on federal highway construction projects are not paid for with federal funds (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/speed/nwzaw/funding.htm), instead being mostly paid for by state highway construction funds.

Here's a breakdown of funding for roads. Note how federal funds aren't even listed for state roads: http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%20200 ... 012307.pdf Can you back up this bizarre assertion either?

Yes, I've seen the signs of some highways being built with contributions of federal funds, but do realize that those funds are TAKEN from the states, and then a portion is returned, and that portion goes on the sign. Never has the federal government actually given more out for a project than it's taken from the citizens/entities of the state (via income tax) in the first place. When it comes to maintenance (which, in the long run, is a much bigger expense), the Feds have little to do with it in any event, and the vast, vast, bulk of roads aren't highways.

Here's a list of funding sources for Texas state libraries. Note how Uncle Sam isn't on this list. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/funding/#sources

Can you back up your odd claim here in some way, showing me some state where the libraries are primarily funded by the Federal government?

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:57 am

Doom wrote:The idea that federal funds are part of funding for state/municipal police departments is so bizarre I'm not sure how to disprove it...obviously state workers are paid for by the state, whoever is signing your paycheck is your boss, after all.

My department personally has been given federal funds for technology upgrades, and the feds also provide free training opportunities. All that is money we can spend elsewhere.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:19 pm

It's worth noting that some territories - Puerto Rico for instance - get a lot more Federal funding that what they actually contribute in the form of taxes.

So there really is a bit of unfairness to the Federal vs State budget disbursement system - and that's before you go into stuff like pork barrel spending.

Like I said a long, long time ago in the Centralization vs Decentralization thread: A strong, central Federal government lets you gather resources to do great things, but when it fucks up, it fucks up big.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:54 pm

Doom wrote:Here's a link showing 96% of funding in Pennsylvania public schools was non-Federal. Can you show me a state where public education is mostly funded by Federal funds?

I see, you are just ignoring all the college level schools, where most federal funding for education goes. I guess that's one way to go.

Doom wrote:The idea that federal funds are part of funding for state/municipal police departments is so bizarre I'm not sure how to disprove it...obviously state workers are paid for by the state, whoever is signing your paycheck is your boss, after all.

You seem to be singularly unaware of even the concept of federal grants. Education funding mostly comes in the form of special projects, but in this, and roads, you seem like you aren't even aware that federal grants exist.

The federal government has grants to the state, which they then use to buy things or sign pay checks.

Doom wrote:Here's a breakdown of funding for roads. Note how federal funds aren't even listed for state roads: http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%20200 ... 012307.pdf Can you back up this bizarre assertion either?

Actually, it's just hidden under "General Fund" which is in some cases up to 45% of the state roads. You'll note that "states" with a high general fund are the same ones that receive the most federal funding for roads, Alaska, Georgia, DC, Oklahoma. (There is probably something else in General funds as well, since last I heard, Massachusetts was not that well federally funded in highways.)

Factor in Highways, and Alaska is more than 50% federal funded road. But that's a bit of a cop out, since it's Alaska.

Doom wrote:but do realize that those funds are TAKEN from the states, and then a portion is returned, and that portion goes on the sign. Never has the federal government actually given more out for a project than it's taken from the citizens/entities of the state (via income tax) in the first place.

And the root of the problem. Yes, obviously the federal government can't spend more than it takes. Although this statement is incorrect, because many states receive more funding than they give out, due to funding imbalances between states.

If you want to bitch about how the federal government isn't giving you more than it's taking from you, that's a different issue which has nothing to do with this conversation, about how the money the government takes from you is spent on you. It doesn't matter if they don't spend more than they take, they still spend what they take on services.

Doom wrote:Here's a list of funding sources for Texas state libraries.

Great, now compare that to federal libraries. Amazing how by excluding all libraries payed for by the federal government, you have a list that wasn't payed for by the federal government.

It's probably hidden in the fine print again, but I don't care to look, because I'm bored of your self deception.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:42 pm

So, nothing at all, then? Fair enough.

Yes, grants exist...but those are a drop in the bucket, much like the 4% I showed earlier. Grants are for a fixed amount of money for a fixed period of time for a fixed purpose, a complete non-sequitor as far as budget goes.

As far as schools go, you and I were both talking about public schools that near 100% of the population is obligated to attend (you did refer to my kids, after all, which, even if I had any, would not likely be college age). For higher education, yes, there is more money, but, again, grants just don't work the way you think they do (lots of students do get Federal loans for education...but loans aren't grants either, and your goalpost moving here makes this a moot point anyway, as we're talking about public schools).

Yes, police departments are getting military surplus equipment, and that helps (although really, some of that big equipment is stuff they don't need and can't use)...still, this is NOT really paying the bills, even if, as noted, one can say that the money that would have been spent on an armored hummer is money that can be spent elsewhere. There's also that "free" anti-terrorist training to help local police deal with the problem, such as it is, that the Federal government created. Drop in the bucket, again.

Yes, I concede some federal protectorates are probably getting a good chunk of federal money...but I was talking about the 50 states where the vast bulk of US citizens reside. Obviously.

I'll give you another chance to actually document some state where the majority, or even a sizeable percentage of their state school/police/library/roads budget, year in, year out, is directly and explicitly provided by reliable funds from the Federal government.

And, seriously, 'Federal Library'? What a cop-out, as, obviously, I'm referring the libraries the vast bulk of the population uses. Where's the nearest "Federal Library" to Baton Rouge? I'm rather curious what such a thing has.

Otherwise, you have nothing at all.

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:47 pm

Wait, wait! We're about to head face first into a stupid argument about semantics. Angel said "the government" gives people useful things for their money, and listed some. You said "the feds" don't pay for those things, the state does. I.E., "the government".

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:01 pm

"The government" in reference to an IRS tax return, refers to the Federal government...and Kaelik and I are both talking about the Feds anyway. Although I guess it's possible that it wasn't an IRS tax return initially, it's unusual to express such in the way it was.

If by 'the government' we're referring to state governments, yeah, obviously, the state government pays for state government things. Yes, state and local governments pay for state police, local schools, and local libraries, no argument there.

Still, we're approaching a major thread derail here, if any of this truly isn't obvious, we should move it to another thread, rather than just have me pick on a guy with no personal RAM.