Andrew

Here is a list of the reasons why I like hipsters:

-The need to differentiate themselves from the rest of society in the most menial ways. It is one thing to go against popular beliefs with sound reasoning but it is another to wear thick rimmed, non-prescription glasses just to be different.

-The lack of hygiene. Honestly it is disgusting.

-The extremely liberal/socialist tendencies. The younger people are the more likely they are to be liberal. Why? They're too young to understand money. They don't understand that the government can't provide everything for people. That money has to come from somewhere. Hipsters also tend to be huge eco nuts to the point of valuing animals and plants more than people. Yet they still look down on others who have differing political beliefs that because they are too young and ignorant to understand why these other beliefs exist.

-The general lack of contribution to society. They're general college students in liberal arts programs who graduate and are unable to find a job that you need a history degree to get. This again contributes to their overly liberal political beliefs because they feel that they went to college so they should be making 70k a year now.

Why does anyone like them?

Whenever I am talking politics with your average, ill informed US citizen it seems that they blindly blame the opposing political party for problems with our government. "It's because the republicans won't....." "If only the Libs would......"

When will people realize that the problem is that we *HAVE* political parties. If congressman went into work without feeling the need to appease their political party (for future election funding) and, instead, chose to try to act in the best interests of their constituents the government would function must better.

It seems that our current system of government revolves around attempting to make the opposing political party look bad.

Bottom Line: Why do people hate the political party that they have less in common with rather than political parties in general?

Okay, so I have taken some of the most common reasons that people buy macs and i'll show you why they are wrong. Turns out most people don't know what they are talking about.

OS - This is solely personal preference, some people like OSX, some like windows some like linux.

OS Stability - If you're actually trying to claim that Windows is an unstable OS you clearly haven't owned a PC since Windows 2000 came out. There is a reason that most businesses use windows and if you don't know, most use XP which is VERY stable. Now, XP isn't perfect, but Windows 7 was regarded as an exceptional OS and Windows 8 added speed, security and the metro looking start menu that some people love or others dislike, though it still gives you the same desktop as windows 7.

Crashes - Macs crash a lot in my experience. I have had to work on both crappy dell and crappy iMacs at my college. The apps and programs on the iMac force close a lot more than any program does on the PC's (The difference is no error message comes up) and even though the PC's are only on Windows XP they are very reliable. Most PC crashes are caused by poorly coded software...the solution...don't use crappy software, there are usually plenty of good free software options for most things.

Viruses - I have been a PC user all of my life and have never had one virus, and actually I am so confident with my computer abilities that I have not had any security software for the last 5 years and I still haven't gotten a virus (Windows 8 includes a basic AVS - Windows defender, but that doesn't really do much so I disabled it). Macs do get viruses and they are actually shipped with the firewall off (real safe). Now, PC's do get viruses at a higher rate but much of that is because people see a pop up of some sketchy website that tells them they can get flashy mouse arrows and then their computer doesn't work right again. Just don't download stupid things and you won't get viruses.

Speed - This is a big one. A lot of Mac users (including my own mom) talk about how fast their mac is...but most people are comparing the speed of their mac to the speed of their old PC. If you compare a computer from 2004 running XP to a mac from 2004 the PC will be faster (provided you spent the same amount).

Build Quality - I understand that you like your all aluminum, unibody computers, but you need to understand that you can get the same from PC companies. Check out the following:

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/467643...

http://cdn1.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//art/lapto...

MY ARGUEMENT:

Price - Look at the 2 set ups listed below. The first of which is my computer currently.

Asus N56VJ:

Precessor - 2.4 GHz i7 Quad Core (3630QM) - FASTER

Graphics Card - nvidia geforce GT 640M 2 GB ram - slower gpu, but has 4 times the memory - SAME

Hard Drive - 750 GB 7200 RPM (SAME)

Ram - 8 GB - SAME

Screen Res - 1920x1080 - BETTER

OS - Windows 8

Software - +180 - Microsoft Office, Cyberlink Powerdirector (video editor, rated better than imovie), paint.net (free photo editor), Wave Editor (similar to garage band without the prerecorded tracks)

TOTAL - $1150 WITH 1 year warranty w/ accidental, other necessary free software - SAME, BETTER IN SOME WAYS, WORSE IN OTHERS.

Apple Macbook Pro:

Processor - 2.3 GHz i7 Quad Core - SLOWER

Graphics - nvidia geforce GT 650M 512 MB - Faster but has 4 times less memory - SAME

RAM - 8 GB - SAME

Hard Drive - 750 GB 7200 RPM - SAME

Screen Res - 1680 x 1040 - WORSE

OS - OS X

Software - Apple stock software - SAME

Price - $2150 with NO applecare

COMPATIBILITY - 90% of the market is PC, so there is less software and games available for macs.

So all in all you get a slower computer with a worse screen, that is less compatible albeit a slight bit easier to use. Other than that you are simply paying a very large premium for a name. You are paying literally $1000 more for an inferior device.

Okay, so my friend...Lets call her Sarah...likes me. I'm 95% sure. I'm going to check with her friend just to be 100% sure, but assuming she does, what should I do? We met each other last year but didn't actually start hanging out until about a month ago. We have gotten really close since then and have been together multiple times a week. So the question is...How should I ask her out?

Okay, so my friend...Lets call her Sarah...likes me. I'm 95% sure. I'm going to check with her friend just to be 100% sure, but assuming she does, what should I do? We met each other last year but didn't actually start hanging out until about a month ago. We have gotten really close since then and have been together multiple times a week. So the question is...How should I ask her out?

Okay, so my friend...Lets call her Sarah...likes me. I'm 95% sure. I'm going to check with her friend just to be 100% sure, but assuming she does, what should I do? We met each other last year but didn't actually start hanging out until about a month ago. We have gotten really close since then and have been together multiple times a week. So the question is...How should I ask her out?

Please understand what I mean when I say attempt. I am fully aware that it is illegal to possess alcohol if you are under the age of 21. I want to know if I am breaking any laws by entering a liquor store, picking up a bottle of booze, and bringing it to the register. If I am asked for proof of my age I could say I left my ID in the car and leave as they have no proof to detain me on, correct?

Why does the government try to standardize and regulate everything. I realize this isn't a very straight forward question, but I'll do my best to explain it.

It seems that the government has a very "one size fits all" approach to law making and don't allow people to make many decisions for themselves or their kids. Particularly (but not limited to) what you can and can't do to your body.

Examples:

Zero tolerance laws in California public schools. These laws mandate that any student, regardless of age, that brings anything that can be perceived as a weapon to school will be immediately expelled. There are several cases that I have heard of where elementary school students, sometimes accidentally, bring a little pocket knife to school and are expelled. They didn't mean any harm, they just didn't know that it was wrong, yet it screws them over. The school district knows the child better than a senator.

Drinking age:

Instead of screwing over some teen with a criminal record and a hefty fine, why don't you say it is illegal to PURCHASE alcohol if you are under the age of 21 and let parents decide if their child is responsible and nature enough to drink. A parent will know their child better than a man who has never met him. Maybe if I knew I was allowed to be drinking when I was a teen I would be more likely to call for a ride than to risk driving home and killing someone.

Drugs:

Similar to alcohol. If someone wants to screw themselves up just enforce strict laws prohibiting them from being under the influence in public. Stupid people will be stupid people. Don't supply them with anything, but if they know they are safe in their house they will do it in their house.

There's a lot more of these type of laws.

My point is:

Why does a Congressman or a Senator get to choose certain things for you, when they know nothing about you or your situations?

So I am looking for a new computer and I really like Asus. There are a lot of options to pick from though and am looking for someone with a little experience.

Primary Uses:

-School/Work

-Mild Gaming

Cost:

-Under $1300 ($1500 at the very max)

Screen Size:

15-16"

Preferred Specs:

-Storage: Minimum 500GB hard drive

-Processor: Preferably Intel i7

-Ram: Preferably 8GB

-Graphics: Not too important. Don't need a gaming level card, but I don't want anything too junky.

Thanks in advance. If you have any recommendations, let me know.

Now, consider that this is coming from a guy, not a girl that feels like she needs bigger boobs.

In all honesty, I find anything bigger than a D cup just simply too big (though it depends on their frame) and D's are much better on someone who is taller.

So my question, why do men prefer these gigantic balloons over a nice B or C cup that actually looks proportionate to their body?

1) it is unconstitutional as it creates a government monopoly in the health care department AND the government uses force to ensure that you pay for it, driving everyone else out of business.

2) it does NOT provide affordable healthcare without causing more debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Your taxes will go up and it'll be just like when you were paying for private health insurance.

3) you might need to pay more than you need, here is why: let's say you are a 28 year old with no health problems, your very healthy, etc. You still pay the same amount and will be contributing towards everyone else's enormous medical bills, when you could have had a less expensive plan

Some of you may naively think healthcare is a right, but you have to realize that it isn't my job to help pay for your health and that you will, at the very least be paying as much as you do now

Wikipedia demographics are fairly accurate and are based on other sources. It is actually 1-2%.

I am just curious where everyone is getting this overstated 10%. I see it thrown around all the time. There is a big difference.

Both major parties have their flaws. However, it seems like most people wouldn't even consider any other candidate. There are pldnty of centrist independant candidates out there. Why won't anyone consider their views.

FDR:

Well... he had a lot, but mostly the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) which created a government run monopoly in the power industry. Plus all of his entitlement programs, many of which were shot down by the supreme court. After they were stopped by the supreme court guess what he did? Tried to add 6 new justices, which he would appoint obviously to push his legislation through.

Truman:

Exec. Order 10320 taking all steel mills for military use.

LBJ:

His "Great Society", pushed through by executive order and all of the entitlement programs held within this supposedly "great society". He was a big violator as was FDR.

Obama:

-Obamacare

-His mandated Medicaid Increases at a state level, something he does not have say over.

-IPAB, which is a government organization that is supposed to start in 2014 that is panel of 15 appointed people who make cuts and adjustments to medicare. Anything they say becomes law and can only be overturned by the senate.

- The Dodd-Frank Reform

- Chrysler Bailout (I am aware that bush did the same with GM)

- **Political Speech Discloser - This is a planned executive order (not yet in effect) that will require any business with a government contract to disclose which party, if any they donated to.

The list goes on. And call me a business worshiping con if you want, but it is not constitutional to force corporations to disclose who they donated money to. Leave them be and let them help our economy. Not tax them to hell when they donate to a party you don't agree with.

So, the 10 questions per hour about conservatives allegedly worshiping big business has got me thinking. Why would you try to bite the hand that feeds you. You can claim they are greedy all you want, but at the end of the day, if you raise corporate taxes they'll either leave the country or raise prices while laying people off. Neither is good for our economy or the lower-middle classes.

NOTE: I am not saying to *insert synonym for worship here* them, but to not blame try to harm them with stupid regulations (not saying all regulations are stupid) and hefty taxes. Just keep taxes down and you will have cheaper goods and more healthy competition in what should be a free market.

I know I am speaking on very general terms, but why is being race neutral equivalent to being racist? In my opinion giving preferential treatment to any group of people (affirmative action) is racist. How come when a conservative questions welfare they get the race card, assuming that because it effects black people at a higher rate it is a malicious attack designed to harm a specific race?

I just don't get it. Is it just an accusation to try to debase a valid point or do they actually believe neutrality is racism?

Again, I know this is very vague. Not saying all liberals.

Teachers are not trained law enforcement officers. However, they have rights to search nearly anything on a student.

***For the record, I am alright with locker searches as lockers are school property.

Here's my take on it: Students who don't go to private schools are required to either get home schooled or go to public schools. So unless you go to a private school or are home schooled you must go to a public school. If I am walking along the street with, for sake of argument, alcohol in my bad while I am underage, I cannot be searched by an officer unless he has a reason to believe I might have it in there, and I am not aloud to refuse the search if they have probable cause or suspicion. However, if some adult came up to me on the street and said someone told me you have alcohol in your bag, let me search it, I can rightfully refuse and leave.

Now, I know the argument that "I am a risk to the safety of the school" but I can argue the same thing about being in public. I am a risk to the public if I have that on me so only. So what makes the adult any different than a teacher or principal? Neither of them has training in law enforcement and neither should have the authority to search my person.

If I was at a private school they could kick me out if I refused a search, but at a public school I am required by law to attend.

So my questions are:

-Why is the school aloud to search me?

-Why aren't they required to get a trained law enforcement officer?

-Who are they to judge probable cause?

I hear people on here nonstop saying how they payed more than mitt Romney in taxes because he only payed 17%. Guess what, if he payed 17% on the 22 million he made last year he payed roughly 3.8 million. More than most people will make in their life and for some reason people thinks he should be taxed more. Then Obama always whines about how "millionaires need to pair their fair share". As it turns out the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes.

My question: why do the wealthy need to be taxed more? Have you (liberals) considered spending less maybe?

We spend 6 times more on our military than china, who spends the second most. If we pulled out of afghanistan, cut our military spending in half (still 2x more than china), cut the department of education, and started to phase out social security (this is the tricky one), we would have no problems getting our budget out of the red and the surplus could shrink our national debt.

Alright, I am not actually pressing charges, but at school today my friend stole my car keys and used my car to go get food and parked it somewhere else as a "joke". What could I hypothetically charge him with?

Alright, I had an excedrine one and a half hippies ago. I took one pill. Each contains 250 mg of tylonal, 200 mg aspirin and a little bit of caffeine. I just drank 5 beers. Will I have any problems? I have never had any liver problems.