can't you take the case off?

the suspension still looked very stiff in that video. Also not a single person asked about dedicated servers?

yeah of course I'm going to buy it.

funny how a ten post streak can change a thread lol.

I don't pay much mind to Atom, which is easy now that he's banned. I think he has mental issues or drug problems and most of what he has said about himself on this forum is a fabrication. So if you think he's 50 and has a wife and children...look at his posts and tell me the person who wrote those is capable of interfacing with people.

Quote from The Very End :

By all means, it's not a bad movie, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Just wait for the Iron Man/Captain America SUPER SEQUEL!

^^ The trailers didn't really draw me in but neither did the trailers for Source Code, so I'll have to rent Limitless.

Has anyone seen "The Hour" on BBC? I saw one episode (pretty good) and now I don't know if it's cancelled or what. BBC has a thing for not keeping their series going for some reason.

Those shots are great, magazine quality. The eye of the photographer is always the most critical.

You're assuming the government can actually say in most cases "We spend $250,000,000 here and it resulted in meeting goals A B and C" This is rarely the case. On the other hand a successful investor must be able to make that statement, being people who actually balance their budgets every year.

The Government: "We spend $250,000,000 here and will continue to do so every year until Green Energy."

alright I'll sum up as best I can, I went too broad and that was my mistake.

You can hate the rich if you like. You can force them to pay even more taxes. But in the end you're only hurting yourself and the economy. Hypothetically, you support a politician who promises to take 1 million dollars more from each wealthy person every year. Sounds great. Most of the ultra wealthy keep 90% or more of their money in investments, it's not like they're sitting on piles of cash. The question you have to ask yourself is: Will that million dollars be spent better by being invested in businesses in say, Silicon Valley, or would the government spend it better on pork barrel pet projects and massive waste?

Also, the ultra rich give away a higher percentage of their money than anyone else. I contend a billionaire funding a vaccination program (Bill Gates) can do it better and more efficiently than a government program attempting the same goal.

Thats not funny thats depressing.

@AndRand
Only because we have made it easier to take from the government than to provide for ourselves. Society as a whole has forgotten what it means to depend on no one but yourself or others who have the means to be charitable by choice.

@xaotic
"I only came in this tread to tell you you're an idiot"

^^ If you just came into this discussion to tell me I'm wrong without backing it up with why you think you're right then you don't really want a discussion after all. All I can say is I read your posts and they were duly noted.

Last edited by flymike91, Fri 12 Aug 2011, 12:19.

You criticize me for my views but you haven't stated any of your true beliefs so far, maybe that explains why I have to guess what they are. I'm not trying to speak in rhetoric; I truly believe that the limits of human nature could be scientifically proven to make global "fairness" impossible.

If you don't like the phrase nanny state I'll replace it with hegemony from now on. Oh and please enlighten me as to the diversions and artificial social and ideological ruts. Sounds like it won't have any embellishments.

You say I have a rigid ideology, so whats yours? It sounds like you're against my idea that people are inherently more powerful than they know, yet you believe that I, a person who espouses personal responsibility, is part of an ideology that has caused people to become less responsible for their own lives and more dependent on the government (which also doesn't make sense because I am for the reduction of federal power). You need to explain that, too.

free market the way it exists today, not how it is supposed to.
I think you me and Chomsky have differing views on what freedom means.

I can't say enough that I don't have blind faith in corporations. Some corporations do horrible things. There is no alternative to businesses, no one will ever do anything for free for very long, but we can shape their actions by either supporting them or not. If you don't like Wal-Mart, buy from an organic market.

Chomsky starts right out criticizing the nanny state hegemony, bailouts, and subsidies which I have always felt are barriers to free thinking, free markets, and personal responsibility. Chomky's problem has always lied in transforming free market theory into reality. While I support the rich in that they are as human as you or me and have equally complex emotions and aspirations, I don't believe in "too big to fail." This current economy has only strengthened that view. Everyone from the poorest to the richest should be equally able to fail, but there is a feeling from the Left that the rich should fail and the poor must succeed.

@xaotic
I have to go broader because your ideology of powerlessness is what has created a global attitude of dependence and made it possible for the governments to become the nanny state. The corruption lies in the government, which exists in part to protect the people from the evils of corporation you have described. If it cannot or will not we pride ourselves in employing democracy to elect those who can. It is possible to become rich without being corrupt. I know this because the top philanthropists in the world are the richest people in the world. They are what we should strive to be if we strive to become wealthy, which not all of us do. We can all strive to be incorruptible.

Specifically to your statement, though. The same human nature that drives companies to poach fish in undeveloped nations also drove companies to make it possible to fly to the moon and back. That human nature can be guided towards goodness with the power of good people, but not towards fairness because there is no fairness to guide it towards.

Last edited by flymike91, Fri 12 Aug 2011, 11:03.

There is such thing as business ethics. I know this because I took that class last year.

Unfair income tax is punishment.

You can criticize all you want, if you think it will help. If you're good enough at criticizing or if you support alternative businesses then that leaves the ones you don't like powerless. Companies cannot exist without you. Your government cannot exist without you. You have the ultimate power of being alive! There is a worldwide push for greater power for the people but not greater personal responsibility. That is the fatal flaw.

You're in the past tense when you're talking about these SA water policies. Sounds like they succeeded in doing exactly what I'm talking about: using their inherent power to secure life liberty and happiness for themselves.

Quote from xaotik :

Like controlling water as a commodity, or genetic use restriction technology in grains, or the deep sea fishing industry, or coffee plantations all over the third world, or oil firms all around the world, or sweatshops in the Far East, etc - the list of exploitation just goes on and on. I think you just accept too many things in a black/white fashion and rather naively.

I said before there are evil corporations. Maybe you skipped a few lines of my posts. Monsanto is one of them, who I'm pretty sure you're referring to. I would argue that there are more businesses which have a beneficial or neutral effect on the world and humanity than the evil ones. Someone with anti-establishment views would disagree, but by punishing the rich to cure the evil you wipe out everything good with it.

You may hate that a company uses sweatshop labor or exploits farmers or pollutes the earth. The great thing is you're free to make your own company if you think you have the talent and you can do it better. If you can't make a company because of things outside your control then you use democracy and make a government that protects your right to achieve life liberty and happiness. If you don't have democracy you fight for it. If you can't or won't fight for what you need you will die. Hundreds of people every day decide that they can do better for themselves and others and start their own businesses; small at first, then as large as their determination and luck can reach. You don't even need to start your own business, really. Just work for or support companies that do things the way you think they should. We can no better control the human nature that causes us to want the best lives for ourselves any more than we can control the bodily function of aging. Some age gracefully, some don't.

PS. no one controls the water supply. You're more than welcome to drink water directly from a pond or from a rain puddle for free. I suggest you pay someone to pipe it purified and mineral-enriched directly to your house or into a nicely packaged bottle but hey it's a free country.

@JJ
"I can't I can't I can't I can't I can't"

Last edited by flymike91, Fri 12 Aug 2011, 09:56.

No one said it was easy, nor it is it equally hard for everyone. A lot of it has to do with natural skill and luck. Look at celebrities. A singer may have amazing talent and never get into show business. An extremely lucky singer could have no talent at singing but a great talent for showmanship and make millions. Neither is a better person than the other, that's just how the world works. You say making money is easy when you have some, but I wonder if you (or very many other people) have the skill, drive, and confidence to turn $10,000 into $10,000,000,000. If I thought you had what it takes to make that look easy I would hire you as my accountant in a heartbeat.

If you sold everything and bought a giant brick of gold I would call you a silly person. Gold should be part of a diverse portfolio also containing real estate and stocks/bonds.
(Land>Gold>Cash)<< IMO I'm not an economist but that's the order I'd put that in. If you don't own land, gold/jewelry, or cash/stocks and the economy goes into hyperinflation then...I dunno good luck I guess. Don't come my way I'm armed. Guns and ammunition are also part of a anarchy-proof portfolio.

Quote from JJ72 :

The poor people are probably just as willing to contribute that if they get the chance to be rich, and don't make tax paying seem like something they volunteer to do, it's by law and god knows how many of them tried to dodge tax some way or another.

I don't intend to make taxes seem that way. I was saying that their high tax rates are a form of punishment. 50% of Americans are apparently more successful at dodging taxes than the uber rich, and do it more often than the 1% you're judging.

Quote :

and judging people's aspiration because they are successful? really? Some people just know how to play the system better than others, and in the business there are commercial attacks and bullying everywhere.....they ain't saints, they make money with your money, and make you pay for the losses when they screw up (banks and investments), they increase their margin of profit with oligopoly and basically control every basic commodity u need.

Are you saying some people are better at making money than others? Some people are better at painting than I am. Some people are better pilots than I am. Being good at making money just happens to be the best thing to be the best at. Most companies are not the evil corporations you are thinking of. There are evil corporations, no doubt. But saying all rich people are evil is not an intelligent statement. The most giving philanthropists in the world also happen to be some of the richest people. Go ahead and look at the causes those people have dedicated their time and money to and tell me they're evil. That list is just the top ten philanthropists, there are many other rich people who give away large portions of their wealth to causes they feel are worthy. Yes, they get tax breaks but those breaks are a fraction of what they donate. Some would say that a charity that helps people get off of Crystal Meth is more worthy than tax dollars given to the government to do who knows what.

If you're lucky enough to live in a country that pays for your secondary education, the rest of those things: aspiration, confidence, perseverance, are things you either have or don't have enough of to become a multi-millionaire. You want to control all of your commodities? You will never succeed unless you live in a commune or own Wal-Mart. << I suggest you go for this one, seems like the better deal.

Quote :

Rich people create jobs? sure, but that's because they can't do everything themselves and they need employees, it's a deal, not charity. They weigh it as a business decision and won't want to pay more than you what need, and how many US business shifted their production to third world countries for cheaper labors? I bet you are thankful.

Employment is not charity, nor should it be. Do you read the things you're saying? It takes thousands of people to run a multi-billion dollar company and a good business man knows that and treats his employees with respect because he needs them and they need him. Many companies pay their employees much more than what they need to survive (in the US anyway, I know China is different in that regard. Hopefully an evil rich philanthropist is donating his resources there.) Look at Google and the benefits they give their employees. People would kill for a job at that company even if they're not making tons of money, do you think it's because they feel worthless?

Quote :

I know some good rich people, but when people get really rich, even if they tries to be good, the people directly beneath them, who ain't quite there and is in the greediest stage of their lives, will manipulate the system and benefit from it.

This statement is vague so I will decipher it in two ways:

1. "Some rich people are good, but when they get extremely rich, they become corrupt"
-Wrong. The link I posted above should be evidence enough for that.
2. "Some rich people are good, but it's the ones just below them that are always greedy and corrupt"
You're so anti-establishment that you become blind to the fact that we are all subject to the limitations of human nature. Greed is not the only way to become rich, and it is not the only way to live your life once you have made your fortune. Most people become rich not by keeping others down, but by expanding on an idea that makes people's lives better. You and I would not be instantly communicating to each other 13,000 kilometers away without the work of corporations full of employees and the rich evil people who direct them.

Last edited by flymike91, Fri 12 Aug 2011, 07:35.

Quote :

^^^^^Suzuki Super Carry ya'll

I have no idea why but I am strangely attracted to boxy japanese vans. Maybe its because they're the only cars more boxy than mine. Also it's because they look useful as hell. Definitely a fine choice for the post-apocalypse.

I didn't even know it was an option.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay ~40% of all income taxes for the entire nation and use public services far less. The top 25% (small to medium-sized business owners) pay ~90% of all income taxes. About 50% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all, yet they use the vast majority of public services. How is this fair? People talk about the rich like they're money making devil robots. They are real people who have the aspiration, perseverance, leadership, and confidence to live their lives as best they can. They create all of the jobs in the private sector and on top of that they pay pretty much all of the taxes. Most employed people in the world owe their livelihood to people like these and all they can think to do is punish them.

http://www.american.com/archiv ... s-the-taxes/article_print

So are the riots still going on or have they burned themselves out?

I was just thinking today how it seems like it is illegal to defend your life and your property in the UK. Thats part of the reason a ragged group of punks can do so much damage; even your police are powerless to defend law-abiding citizens.

Quote from The Very End :

The reason for this is that they want to screw the PC users. They earn more on the consolls, and then want to milk them first before letting a crappy - portet - shitfest beeing handed over to the poor PC users :/
Conclusion is: Screw that shitfest, I'm going torrent. If they canot trust the avarage gamers, and generally wants to **** us over, then let them have it, they don't get my money.

hundreds of thousands of PC gamers don't pay for games, they steal them and then mod and hack them. No wonder developers don't want to make PC games. You probably would have gone torrent anyway.

Quote :

For anything over 200k they should be paying 50% income tax.

so, like serfdom of old, people should spend half of their time working their land, and half of their time working the feudal lord's land. Except now the lord is a hoodie with a rock and a shitty attitude. Why would should middle classes work at all when they are forced to forfeit half of their money to people who don't?

Believe it or not but the government's job is to protect, not to provide.

you're forgetting corporate tax, property tax, sales tax on million dollar+ items, capital gains tax, estate tax, jobs created by large corporations...everything. It's very romantic to think that the poor could run the country and corporations and maintain the same quality of life.