I would say a lot of NES games could tie on this one.

At 4/19/09 03:08 PM, MisterRPG wrote:

My point is perfectly clear,

If by perfectly clear, you mean that it is unseeable, then you are correct.

I'll repeat it again,

Like you do all your points?

though I doubt it will do any good.

Because you're just repeating yourself with no evidence?

You have nothing to back up your claim, you simply have the claim itself.

Ashes calling the silverware black. You'll probably be too dumb to get what I mean by that, but seriously, you have not backed up a single claim of yours, and ignored the presence of anything I presented. You ignoring it doesn't make it disappear.

You keep talking about these mountains of evidence, but have yet to link any of them.

Of course you haven't posted any links either, hypocrite.

PROVE what you're saying instead of demanding that we accept it as "fact" because you say it's true.

What like you keep doing and I keep not doing?

I could say that it's fact that you're full of bullshit, but instead, I'm simply demanding you back your claim with proof.

While not backing up any of your own claims.

Making the claim that it will significantly reduce it does place the burden on you. I'm not going to waste my time with "proving" you wrong when you haven't said anything worth disproving.

It doesn't if you're not a history denialist, since the crime was the reason prohibition was repealed, and the drop thereafter was the reason it stayed repealed.

In the meantime, I'm going to have to assume until you show otherwise that you're simply demanding everyone else put up so that you can attack them, rather than defend your own claims.

No, that's what you're doing, I'm using known facts, you're just making shit up, demanding links, without of course, posting any links yourself.

Congratulations on pure failed logic. There was a black market and organized crime before Prohibition, and Prohibition simply skyrocketed it to new levels. The ONLY thing taking it away fixed was the problem it created.

Dumb shit you just proved my own points for me. Gosh damn you are a retard.

You're backing up your claims with more claims.

No that's what YOU do, and the funny thing is you agree and you don't even know it. You're just arguing in a sad attempt not to look like a complete idiot.

Speaking of tap dancing, way to strawman this argument. You pulled a dead point about moonshining out of nowhere

No I brought that up because YOU said drugs would still be on the black market with legalization, so to address your dumbass, I used the parallels with alcohol to demonstrate how you were overblowing things. You were just too stupid to see that.

How are they the equivalent? Why the HELL do you think they're called hard drugs? Do pot, nicotine and alcohol have immediate physically addictive effects?

Nicotine and alcohol do, and both are legal.

Do they have side effects like brain damage, seizures, death, and more simply by a miscalculated overdose?

Nicotine and alcohol do, and both are legal.

Good, good, now drink thick, creamy, milk out of it.

At 4/19/09 06:24 PM, aninjaman wrote: So the people protesting the taxes will most likely get a tax cut while corporations evade taxes using offshore tax shelters shown above.

Of course you ignore that small, starting businesses can't use those "shelters"

:I took a brake for a few days to re-evaluate something. Apparently the rich were much more taxed in the past, BUT, there were facotrs back then that don't apply today, many of which apply to the cost of living being way lower(due to a number of reasons), meaning people had more money to spend to buy more products back then.

I forgot to clarify that it was lower, even adjusted for inflation, my bad.

I took a brake for a few days to re-evaluate something. Apparently the rich were much more taxed in the past, BUT, there were facotrs back then that don't apply today, many of which apply to the cost of living being way lower(due to a number of reasons), meaning people had more money to spend to buy more products back then.

At 4/19/09 01:49 PM, KemCab wrote:
World War II did. It took decades to pay back for it. The government did more borrowing during the war than through the entire New Deal, and the post-war economy boomed as a result. But we paid it back and no one had to foot the bill right up front.

Fair enough, I guess we'll see on the deficit.

The stock market drops and rises on a whim. And again, the stimulus bill has only been taking effect now and the price of crude oil is going up.

Which makes taxing worse, people need money to drive to work, if the government is taking it away that's bad.

There's a similar law that's on the books of a lot of states that force you to report a crime, but very few people are prosecuted for it. Not that it's bad- for example, in India, a practice called sari, or immolating a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, is banned, and since no one wants to intervene they made it a law not to sit idly by.

Yeah, maybe so.

I guess there are possible implications, but the United States is far from a dictatorship. Rights are one thing, but a balance of power is another, and no party could ever get unilateral control for an extended period of time without a fight.

Not totalitarian, but the government could chill a bit.

True, but I doubt it will be severe. Excessive taxation would stifle the economy.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't a gas tax included? Cus gas prices are what made people unable to pay their loans ya know.

It is a problem. We should get them out as fast as possible, but... we did win the war. In 2003. Also, the military is overextended. We have hundreds of military bases in other countries, a lot of which do not serve any practical purpose at this time. And sure, we have other problems too.

Right, but pulling out sooner might make us look like deserters and pussies. Can't have countries thinking they can militarily push you around, or else they will try and do so.

By whose standards? Ours? We've always had a lower tax rate than a lot of developed countries. And what about the rich? The very rich have enough money as is, they don't need a new mansion or jet.

Maybe, but they've earned the rights to it. It's not just that though, the very rich pay your check and set prices at the store. That is why the top bracket is the most dangerous to tax, because it hurts everybody.

There's a high probability that it will at least do something, and if it doesn't, you have to wonder where all that money went. Either way, government is probably not going to raise taxes until we're out of the recession, because taxes will only plunge us back into it if we do it immediately.

Well we can only hope, and when we're out, let's hope it doesn't plunge us back down.

Because of all the poor people that rely on it. We're far from a complete welfare state but you can't expect people to rely on welfare AND be against abortion while having a dozen kids. Healthcare has become an issue in the last few years, too.

And I garentee you that very few of them are actually reaping its benefits. Being someone, who, actually qualified and knew others who qualified and also never got them. It's helping maybe 1% of the poor people who even qualify, because they are so picky that almost none of the allocated money is given out.

Well, what can you do? Bush coddled the Republican right for a while during his first term.

And that's bad also.

Yet Obama's working for the common man and the union supposedly represents the worker. It would be nice for him to speak out against UAW- they do deserve it, and it would be good if he took similar measures to them as to GM's CEO, but it seems like a risk to his approval rating considering the right-wing's complete antipathy to his administration rather than a booster.

But people know UAW is a problem, it's not like the public hasn't noticed it. It's not as risky as it may seem at first glance.

The country is pretty divided on that. A majority have hailed him as a bringer of hope, but that only makes the minority already against him angrier and more paranoid. Hell, people have called him the Antichrist and the agent of the New World Order. He's had the highest approval rating so far, so it seems like people still have a good impression.

I could swear dropping 9% in 3 months was a high rate to fall, but I was wrong about the top tax, so maybe not. We'll see.

But the problems have compounded before Obama even stepped into office, he's not creating the problems... so far. Detractors have made outrageous claims about him, and have gotten more explosive over his election than any other president.

But the detractors are the ones seeing him say stuff like "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody", so a lot of it is certainly his fault. I haven't seen all of it so maybe some isn't, but I know a lot of it is.

Three interesting cases: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Perry. All of them governors who are trying to make an appearance in the limelight yet seem like weak contenders. Palin's a populist idiot, Jindal's a wannabe good ol' boy, and Perry made a mention of actual secession from the Union. What year does he think this is, 1861?

Okay, and your point is? Cus I'm not quite sure what you're saying exactly.

But they don't talk about his race all the time. It's a tacit issue. It affects it whether or not people mention it, and his race has been a factor in people's support for him during the election. Otherwise McCain wouldn't have tried to up him with a woman VP candidate, he would have gotten a more qualified one.

I can see your point, people did want to see the first black president and have wanted to for years. I think more than not voted neutrally of the matter though. I'm not saying everyone was racially unbiased, just most people.

It might not be crazy talk if the stimulus fails, rapid inflation ensues, and nothing is fixed. I don't sense it would be a concern in the major population centers of the country on the coasts, but there is the off-chance that militia groups would try to cause problems for the federal government in light of a major crisis.

Yeah, I guess only time will tell.

Yet inflation is more likely to arise from our debt or from the loss of competitiveness in foreign markets. Also, some inflation is good or at least unavoidable- hyperinflation is bad, but deflation or zero inflation can destabilize the economy. It allows more money to flow in the economy while not making the currency totally worthless in purchasing goods.

Here we agree. And in fact, the debt is part of the reason for the Tea Parties as well.

At 4/19/09 12:46 PM, Mast3rMind wrote:
Really now?

I was to understand it didn't get to the 70%-90% range until about Nixon, but regardless, there were indeed other factors of the time, and hiking taxes doesn't really help the economy.

At 4/19/09 10:15 AM, KemCab wrote:
How about the New Deal? That seemed to have generally worked. It was basically a giant pump-primer into the American economy, which is the premise behind the stimulus bill.

Well, the New Deal didn't plunge us into a deficit on this scal did it? Taxes were also much lighter back then, then add the fact that it wasn't the New Deal, but industrial production spurred by WW2 that got us out of the Depression. So it wasn't a disaster, but there were differences, and it didn't by any means restore the economy.

Of the day? The bill passed in February. The DJIA's low point was in early March. It's up 20% now. If anything, the stimulus seems to be working, or at least restoring confidence.

The earnings reports from the time at which the bailouts were given have been coming in, around which time, the was more money circulating due to $1 a gallon gas prices as well.

A Good Samaritan law is not a duty to rescue someone or report a crime, it's a law that legally protects people who go out of their way to rescue people from legal repercussions. The laws that you're thinking about are state laws, and those are rarely enforced because they're hard to.

Are you sure? I was to understand it was that if you see a crime, you have to do something about it and not sit idly by.

That's Bush, not Obama. I don't doubt the implications of the new measures taken to fight terrorism, as far as rights and freedoms are concerned, but they have been effective.

Yes, but at what cost?

Don't you do that already?

Not if I lose it to taxation.

The military budget is half a trillion dollars. Cutting half of that would save you $250 billion dollars alone. And did I say neglect government waste and corruption? No, but in light of all these things we need to take care of, we really do not need to fight the war, and shouldn't continue it while trying to cut back on useless spending.

Unfortunately, yes, we're contracted into it and it would cause us major problems to pull out. However, allowing the contract to expire in 2011 would have no negative effects and we can claim we won the war. Also 250 billion is nothing on the unnecessary spending we do. We're literally spending trillions.

That's like saying I have no right to take all your money and put you in a cardboard box. He never mentioned how much he would be taxed, if he paid taxes in the first place, even though Obama asserted taxes would return to the level it was during the Clinton administration. And he obviously didn't speak for 95% of the population, who don't even make enough money to "buy a business that makes over $250,000 a year" like he really knows that Obama has plans for tax hikes for the middle class.

Clinton taxed the upper class too much as it is. 39.6%, almost 40%, that's pretty excessive.

Which is why people should give the bill time.

But the problem is, if it doesn't, it's a crippling blow. And then what? Congress bitched and moaned endlessly about cutting taxed by 1.6 trillion in the Bush era, so how can we expect them to ever cut these taxes? That's why everyone is so upset. It's not like they have no problem cutting spending and taxes when they find they don't need 'em.

Medicaid is definitely overburdened, as I know it. Many people can't pay for health insurance and over 40 million people rely on it. Then again, the healthcare industry as a whole is completely swamped, thanks to a load of issues like malpractice insurance and expensive meds.

It wasn't when I applied for it a few years ago, but with healthcare declining since then it's not unbelievable. Still, I didn't get it back when I applied for it and their excuse was that while I qualified, they wanted people who were stupid enough to produce multiple kids they couldn't take care of( and honestly, I'd much rather those kids starve so they and their stupid genes can be a thing of the past anyway)

Too bad Obama's not going to do that because UAW was a strong supporter.

Right, but that's a problem now isn't it.

It is, but he can't really do anything about UAW. They're not receiving money, they supported him, and it would look bad if he did anything about it. They assert it's because of pensions and healthcare benefits, and that alone would seem like a breach of promises after all that talk about fixing the system.

This is true, and no one's saying that being a politician is easy, but doesn't it look just as bad if he allows himself to be in the pockets of UAW? I mean, it looks bad ether way, so he may as well do the right thing. Besides, he's a good speaker, I'm sure he can easily get the public to understand him not wanting to blindly serve the interests of people who fund his campaigns, being how it is like bribery and all.

Okay, you were right, but that's more of their fault than his.

Granted, but it's still an issue that UAW needs to be told to stop their nonsense, be their estate 33 million or 50 billion.

January 20 to April 19?

Yeah I noted in a successive post that I messed up the timeline.

His approval rating seems to remain fairly high. Higher than pre-9/11 Bush anyway. Regardless of political affiliation no candidate will get 100% support from every single member of his party.

Well polls aren't all that trustworthy, but even so, for his disapproval rating to be so close to the percentage who don't approve is pretty bad. People who don't support him, plainly hate him(as the tea parties show), and we don't know how much those who said they approve of him support him.

That's an eventual possibility but things aren't that bad right now.

No, not right now, and I would like to think they won't come to it. But it's still possible. I'd say a 5-10% chance, but that's high compared to the 1 in 10000 to 1 in 1000000 chance for most presidents.

Governors are ambitious to get in the national spotlight, for example, Palin.

True, but they are unlikely to do it by taking a stance they don't hold. If they do, they get caught double talking which never ends well for them.

Why do you think there's been so much coverage of the whole thing? Personally, I support Obama but the presidential race has been racially charged ever since he got the nomination. Whether or not the people who oppose him are racist are a different story.

Because the media believes it to be good for their ratings(whether it actually is or not). Talking about his race makes it a hot issue that draws attention, and, as they hope, gets people watching. Almost nobody actually care about his race.

I think we are comfortably far from one to say, thankfully, that it's crazy talk for now.

Well not crazy talk, but not exactly imminent for the time being. Enough of a possibility to be a concern though.

I think we need massive inflation for that.

Which is what the tea parties are about, at least partly. Taxation can indeed cause inflation and that is one of the top concerns.

At 4/19/09 10:12 AM, robotking98 wrote: forget it, with immortality rapes will become more frequent,cause psychos will know they will no longer have a "death" penalty, they wont fear getting shot by police when they run away, more kids will keep coming in to the world until the entire planet becomes over populated, basically if it does happen, humanity is screwed

Immortality as in no life span, not as in you can't be killed. It's quite different.

At 4/19/09 09:49 AM, LesPaulLord wrote: Ummm, just think about it, in the 80' they said cars would fly in the 00' and so... it didn't happen... sigh.

They don't fly, but the technology is here to make them do so, and has been for over 10 years. The problem is, flying a car, or anything, comes with a TON of problems that are not encountered while driving on a road. There's enough bad drivers as is, no one wants to see them fly.

Extending our lifespan significantly however, does not necessarily have bad reprecussions. We would have to possibly restrict reproduction to people under 100 to prevent overpopulation, and it's a bit of a hot potato, but it's not implausible that this could happen.

At 4/19/09 09:23 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: I would love to be a cyborg. I already think like a robot, why not become one? I would try to speed up the research as fast as possible so that it is a viable reality.

Mind you, the guy even said he's not relying on it to work, so I wouldn't get too excited. For now, it's an interesting curiosity. I don't think life could be extended indefinitely even if it works. You have to be precise down to the quarks for that to happen and you just can't be.

But living 1000 or even 10000 years isn't implausible.

As little as 25 years, probably means realistically 50-75 years. Many of us will already be dead by then, others very old. I have to wonder if this would work on those of us who, if alive at all, will be old when this happens.

A slight correction, I miscalculated the days and months, so go ahead and ignore what I said about that.

At 4/19/09 04:02 AM, KemCab wrote:
Yeah, but it hasn't even been 100 days since he's been in office and people are still scrutinizing every decision he's made or every action his supporters make.

He took office on January 20 right? It's been over 100 days since then.

Overtax? At what point does tax become blatantly excessive?

How about when you lose a significant portion of your income to them?

And define 'effective' home defense weapons. There will never be a blanket ban on firearms thanks to the Second Amendment anyway.

Never said there would be, just saying "if" they tried such a thing it'd be bad.

Do I need proof to tell you that if I empty a bucket of water into the soil in my backyard, the water will most likely end up first draining in the nearest river rather than in the Persian Gulf?

Saying "it's obvious, I don't need proof" in the most verbose way you possibly can isn't proving a thing. Except that you don't have any proof that is.

The Dow Jones Industrial average is up nearly 6% today at 8131.33, which is funny considering that it was 1,500 points lower a few weeks ago.

Which had nothing to do with Obama FYI. In fact, in the early parts of the day, it was dropping. Gee, could it be the stimulus that was making it drop?

stuff about ACTA

And the patriot act didn't really do anything but tell authorities to go after terrorists and people who don't report them(which was already illegal because of the good samaritan law). Not only that, but Bush NEVER tried to grant amnesty for warrantless searches. You're telling me that's okay?

Again, define overtax. Does taxation put you below the poverty line?

Does it have to? What about my right to enjoy my hard earned money?

If anything, one thing we CAN cut spending on is the military.

Right, let's not cut any of those bullshit programs that aren't working because the workers are told to give only to "who needs it" and most of the allocated funds end up truncated when they give very little out because of it, just the military. Not all the pork barrel spending, not the useless programs, not the war on drugs, just the military.

Except he was not a licensed plumber in the first place,

Missing the point, again. Can you, like, stop purposely dodging the issue of, you know, heinously high taxes? I don't care what he was, he's right when he says Obama has no right to overtax him. I see you favor Ad Hominem when it suits you to engage in it though.

Okay, consider it this way. If Obama gives you a couple thousand bucks to spend in tax relief, you have an incentive to use that money. If it works, the economy will pick back up because people are putting more money into it, hence jobs will increase, wages will improve, your stocks will do better, and you can pay for it later because you have a lot more money to spare. This is the basis of Keynesian economics.

I can definitely see merit to this way of thinking. There is a small problem I have with this though, and that is the assumption that it will play out the way it is supposed to. I can't help but think that this is nothing more than a nice thought. BUT, if it does work, it works.

You know, you really should just talk like this instead of trying to spin, dodge, and tap dance your way around the issue itself. Seriously, I know you're a smart guy, you don't need to try diverting me with bullshit.

Because it's underfunded already. It's not a money machine and it's overburdened as is.

Ok, where's the evidence that foodstamps, section 8, and medicaid is underfunded. It's my understanding that they are overfunded if anything, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. However, I need evidence.

They're not a money-making enterprise in the same sense as GM is, so why would they need to reorganize?

Not per se, but they do have drastically over inflated benefits and stuff.

Yet GM doesn't have to make so many concessions to them-

I don't know the specifics, but even so, gutting UAW needs to be done.

not to mention that they weren't profitable anyway because they refused to go with consumer demand.

Part of which was UAW's fault. They didn't want to negotiate car prices for instance, because they were paying UAW so much.

stuff about "Do whatever it wants"?

But that's missing the point. I'm saying for him to put weight on GM alone is wrong.

Wages weren't the only thing that caused the problem.

No, not at all, but it was a huge part of it.

Something needs to be done? First of all, the UAW endorsed Obama. On one hand, he's a hypocrite because he doesn't do anything about the union, but if he does, he's a backstabber.

Okay so you think any time someone supports a politician who wins, it's perfectly excusable for the politician to ignore the problems they cause and serve their interests? Funny, we're quick to criticize politicians for being in the pockets of corporations, but being in the pockets of overinflated unions that have 50 billion dollar resorts is perfectly acceptable because it makes them non-backstabbers?

Second, WHAT needs to be done?

Tell them to stop demanding so much benefits that car companies who employ them can't profit?

All they did was grab management by the balls to negotiate for better wages,

....and benefits to the point that it was near impossible for GM to profit.

and with the stimulus plan in action, it would be counterproductive in the sense that a large part of that plan is to give the consumer more buying power, which you can't do if you force them to cut pay.

Of course, the UAW didn't exactly lack for "buying power" and didn't need any help in the first place, which you are ignoring.

Similar things? Hell, it's not like he suspended the Bill of Rights or anything in the, what, not even three months that he's been in office so far?

January to April = 4 months. And yeah, he totally isn't going for bypassing police warrants, or ACTA, or suspension of habeous corpus(sp?), oh wait, yeah he is.

Personally I was never critical about the Patriot Act in general, and if anything, the reorganization and consolidation of investigative federal agencies was one of the few GOOD things to come out of Bush's presidency.

Ok, then I suppose I was wrong on that point.

As opposed to Canadians?

As in, people of any affiliation are starting to hate him. I know democrats who went to the Tea Party with me.

Disastrous? What exactly has he done that was completely disastrous? Nothing happened of note during other presidents' first days in office because few people cared after the media hype of elections. Hell, Bush didn't really do anything before 9/11.

Maybe so, but there's already people threatening an eventual revelotion(the significance of the tea parties) if shit doesn't turn around. Sure, people have talked about it on Clinton and Bush, but they've been isolated incidents. Not a HUGE mass of organized people. Even the Governers' offices are openly rebelling.

But this is the first black president and EVERYONE wants to see what he'll do and how he'll deal with the situation. He is scrutinized in every detail- could you blame him for any controversy?

You are being racist, judgemental, and self-righteous. This has nothing to do with his race, and frankly, it is very bigoted of you to even bring that up.

That's a pretty bold claim. Obama never had an affair or started a war.

Just a possible brewing revolution.

At 4/18/09 08:28 PM, afuckingname wrote: and ofcoruse there was harm done. they ingested the drugs

And of course, being the moron that you are, you think people ingesting drugs is a much worse problem than terrorism and murder.

lets see, the poorest neighbourhood is canada has a major drug problem, where its disproportionally native, and they dont have to pay for prescriptions, yum free prescription meth. and whos going to end there?

The poorest neighborhoods in America have drug problems, and it's illegal here, so you have no point.

At 4/18/09 04:35 PM, KemCab wrote:
But is that necessarily bad? The federal government relies on clauses in the Constitution, i.e., the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause to get things done.

It is if they're using it to overtax and stop us from having effective home defense weapons.

At least the money will go back to the taxpayer instead of overseas.

Do you have any proof, other than the words of politicians?

He's doing it? So the economy is now spiraling deeper and deeper into a full-blown depression?

Yes

stuff about acta

Even if it doesn't change things drastically, the point is that he's really no better than Bush was.

It doesn't change the fact that you have to pay taxes,

Right, but we've been overtaxed for years, and he's making it not just worse, but drastically worse.

or the fact that we've been spending so much lately that an increase in taxes is needed to pay for the existing budget deficit.

Wrong, we have been spending a lot, yes. But, you know, we, can cut spending, it's just we never do because of whiney lobbying groups. Besides which, he's only managed to triple the deficit even with the tax hikes, so I don't even see why you point that out.

Joe the Plumber was an asshole anyway.

No Joe the Plumber was a hard working American who wants his money where it belongs, his wallet. Obama directly told him he was going to take his money and distribute it around, trying to bullshit him into believing the "less is more" principle.

If you did that, we wouldn't be able to pay for roads, blah blah blah I'm avoiding the point and trying to sidetrack you by talking about shit that we've been paying for long before Obama's tax hikes.

But seriously dude, stop trying to spin your way around the point. This is about the so called "stimulus plan", not shit we've been paying for without it and certainly don't need it for.

Not giving too much of it back? I'm going to pretend you didn't say certain things that you did now.

Avoiding the point, again. What about the part where I said not everyone who qualifies will realize it, or actually get the funds once they apply for them? Cus you know, I didn't just make that up, this is known to be true with existing government programs

He's not bailing out the union.

No shit sherlock.

Also, GM doesn't have to hire union workers. Toyota doesn't.

Too bad you're avoiding the point that it's near impossible to fire them, as well as the point that they're not exactly hired on while they're in the union.

UAW was getting too comfortable, but effectively you can't really do anything to them either.

So let me get this straight, the government can do whatever it wants to CEO's, but not UAW? Gimme a break.

Under Wagoner, GM shares dropped over 90% and he ultimately axed any progress going on at GM,

Of course, a large chunk of that was UAW's fault, but you seems to be prancing around that little issue.

for example, not only he killed the EV1 line, but he had the cars taken from their leasers, then had them shredded and destroyed. He focused on SUVs and trucks as oil prices skyrocketed. You can't deny he was part of the problem.

Of course, I never said he was an angel, I only said that something needed to be done about UAW as well. But you're so focus on trying to cover Barrack Obama's ass that you're missing a lot of my points. A case in point:

By that logic so was Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Hell, anyone who suspends your liberties for a moment of necessity must be a tyrant, right?

See, you're critical of Bush for being an asshole, and he was one. But the thing is, when Barrack Obama does similar things, you go out of your way to excuse him for it.

Not to sound cliché but Obama seems to have offended both parties in some way,

Technically, but it's more like he's offended Americans in general.

At the same time, if he didn't do those things, people would criticize him for doing nothing

You're going to get criticism no matter what you do, yes. But, it's extremely rare that a politician is so disasterous, that in his first 4 months alone, he causes more controversy than the 2 presidents before him combined. 16 years of fuck ups between Clinton and Bush have already been outdone by Obama, I'd call that pretty serious.

At 4/17/09 09:02 PM, KemCab wrote:
These 'tea parties' are nonsensical and only see their money being used in the short-term; I mean, not that they're protesting against anything specific in the first place.

Sorry, but that is pure ignorance. We want our hard earned money going to our wallets, not the fucking government. This is exactly the bullshit that we knew he'd pull when he gave his speech to Joe the Plumber, people elected him anyway, and now our hard earned dollars are being fucked over. As for your point on taxing it then giving it back, wouldn't it be simpler just to not tax and not have to give it back in the first place? I mean not everyone is going to benefit, those that qualify won't necessarily know it and apply, and like w/ food stamps and medicaid, not all who qualify and apply will even get it.

So our government is effectively taxing us, not really giving too much of it back, and furthering the ever controversial deficit. What's nonsensical is to deny this and pretend like you know what the tea parties re about, when you're not even a part of them.

Is Obama in direct control of General Motors? He just wanted an executive who was stubborn to change out. He didn't replace the CEO with a government crony. He didn't even choose the replacement. He just told them to restructure. Is that so much to ask?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, he did exactly nothing to UAW, which was a major part of the problem. I'm not going to pretend like GM did nothing wrong, because of course they did, no companies are perfect. But, if he did ignore UAW, which to my knowledge he did, then that is quite the problem.

All of which was done under the Patriot Act. You can't be prosecuted for violating the Constitution either, especially not in wartime.

Either way they're both tyrants.

Unless it releases public information about you against your disclosure. If people convicted on a wiretap could sue there would be no point in wiretapping. Why am I arguing about this? The Republicans barely raised their voices about the Patriot Act.

Well then, that just furthers the issue that both parties are full of shit, now doesn't it?

At 4/17/09 09:12 AM, KemCab wrote:
It was hardly to get around the law. It's just getting the executives at the major car companies to play ball by our terms. Beggars can't be choosers.

Which may not be extortion per se, but it's definitely government manipulation.

Typical paranoid bullshit.

Not really, we know the government exploits loopholes in the constitution from time to time. Literally making bullets expensive is indeed not unconstitutional.

Except Obama never suspended our liberties

Right, he didn't push through and sign Acta..................

or started a costly war for no good reason.

No, he's just finding other ways to triple the deficit.

You said yourself that Obama will try to plunge us deeper into a recession with the spending. You also figured that he's part of some big conspiracy to take control of the United States. Last I checked, he never said that this recession was going to last very long either.

He may not be trying to plunge us down further, but he's doing it regardless. As for taking control, I wouldn't put it beyond him, what with acta and stuff.

I actually went to one and it was a blast. For the record, I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat. I hate those associations and I think our 2 party system is what is killing America and creating those tax hikes. I mean who are supposed to vote for? Another guy who'll also raise our taxes? The 2 parties seem to have a trust going on where neither does anything radically different than the other, and because people won't elect third parties, we're stuck with this bullshit.

Those old commercials from the NES and Intellivision days.

At 4/15/09 08:28 PM, afuckingname wrote:

At 4/15/09 08:23 PM, Armake21truth wrote:

1. Don't use wikipedia, EVER, no one with any IQ above 50 will take that source seriously.

execpt its completly true and happened so
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=merr y+pranksters&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq =f&oq=merry+prankster

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=merry +pranksters&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

and it was because of those people that those drugs became illegal

And of course it was a stupid reason to make them illegal when we can just make the acid tests themselves illegal instead.

2. try and utilize your brain,

I do, and that is how I know that addicts' wills are not effected by the law. They'd much rather go to jail than not get their next hit, that is what makes them addicts.

At 4/15/09 08:15 PM, afuckingname wrote: about the meth and new addicts, the current addicts would for sure know where they'll get thier next hit. and it will be like this all over again

1. Don't use wikipedia, EVER, no one with any IQ above 50 will take that source seriously.

2. Yes, but they also will have no legal repricussions for coming forward and seeking professional help for their addictions.

At 4/14/09 08:31 PM, CompleteDouche wrote:
Meta Knight...

dumb ass

The fact that you're too stupid to get the joke makes YOU stupid, not me.

At 4/14/09 09:22 PM, MisterRPG wrote:

You have absolutely nothing to back up this claim. That's why instead of addressing the point, you're sidestepping it by nailing the technicality of what I said. Yeah, I shouldn't have resorted to such an overgeneralization, but you know... so what. You're making a massive not to mention incorrect leap in logic in assumign that legalizing drugs will significantly reduce the black market and drug dealing.

Massive, massive, massive, blah blah blah.

Maybe instead of using that buzzword as a crutch, you should clearify what exactly your point is if indeed I did miss it as you so claim. Not to mention it is quite ironic of you to accuse me of having nothing to back my claims up with, when it is YOU who can not back up this little statement:

You're making a massive not to mention incorrect leap in logic in assumign that legalizing drugs will significantly reduce the black market and drug dealing.

Seriously, what "back up" do you have that this is not the case? Or that it is "incorrect" as you say? There's mountains of evidence that drugs have greatly expanded the black market, mostly due to exclusivity. So it stands to reason, by anyone with at least a shred of intelligence, that creating a legal market for drugs, would indeed result in a significant reduction of the black market. So the burden of proof is therefor on you to prove your side.

Legalizing alcohol didn't do it,

Legalizing alcohol DID do it. Are you fucking stupid? The major cities were being run by organized crime because people wanted their illegal liquor. Are you telling me this is still the case? Seriously, proof or QFT.

What you're doing is failing, and failing hard, by pretending that black market and drug dealing are practically the same thing so that attacking the latter will reduce the former.

No, what I'm doing is backing my points up with logic, rational, and facts. What you're doing is retorting by telling me I'm wrong with no proof, no facts, no ligcal reasoning whatsoever, just you telling me I'm wrong. Plain and simple. Somehow I doubt I'm the one failing.

I didn't say the black market = drug deals, however, they ARE quite a significant portion of it. AND that moonshining is not only an insignificant spec, but way, way, WAY smaller today than it was in the 20s, even ignoring percentages and going with raw numbers(i.e., not compensating for population growth). You seem to be tap dancing around these two points for fear of looking stupid(as if you don't already).

As for hard drugs, let's not pretend they're the equivalent of alcohol, tobacco, or even pot. It's just plain dishonest.

They are, the one who is stupid is you. As your stupidity is the one thing you have actually managed to prove in this thread.

At 4/14/09 08:27 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Now, I meant that making it cheap and available wouldn't expand it.

But then, that's supporting me, not contradicting me.

Hmm, I may be overestimating it then. i know that I can drink beer without getting drunk. But taking XTC or LSD always appeared like something that could take me out immediately. Even weed seems quite effective, observing others smoking it. But then again, I never did it myself.

And of course, that says nothing about addiction, which was what we were talking about.

As to the regulations of alcohol sales, I never noticed it. Alcohol is cheap, can be bought with ease and even minors can buy it just like that. At least where I live.

I believe that's an Ad Ignorantium. Arguing that shit happens that way where you live. It is rather amazing though, that you live in the only place in America where alcohol isn't taxed and is sold to minors with no oversight. Of course, this place is obviously imaginary and made up just to make yourself look right, but whatever.

I don't claim they can't be made that way. Though I feel rather uncomfortable knowing that anyone can walk into a discount store and buy a shot of Heroin. But that is rather my personal unease.

Personal unease does not justify restriction of people's rights and continuation of violent murders. That's the same justification people use to try and outlaw cursing, because they have "personal unease" with such words.

They are only recently taxing it and it's still not that expensive and fairly safe.

They've been taxing it for some time, and while not wallet killing, the taxes ain't cheap at all.

At 4/14/09 07:48 PM, kRaZyAzN wrote:
The two pictures just show Snake's ridiculous range. He's currently 2nd on the tier list, only surpassed by MK

He's only surpassed by Mortal Kombat? What?

I think the idea is lame altogether really.

At 4/14/09 03:08 PM, WilliWowza wrote:
Hit boxes are different from the fight animation.

Yeah but in those shots, the hit boxes way, waaaaaay off.

No but I do enjoy seeing people tear them to ribbons with facts ( que RKOwens4 with RE4 music ).

At 4/14/09 03:37 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Unless drugs will be made available with little regulation and at cheap cost, this is debatable.

Actually no it isn't because we have what happened with alcohol and prohibition to prove you wrong. And tell me again how making it cheap and available will expand the black market?

Alcohol and drugs are two different things of course.

No, not really.

Alcohol is not as addictive and has little regulation as to making it.

Which is exactly why we have no alcoholics and absolutely no laws regulating the sale of alcohol, when and where it can be sold, how it must be transported, etc.

Oh wait, we do have all that, so you're wrong.

Like I said before, drugs should be legalised and made available to the masses cheap and with little regulation.

And you have no way of knowing that they won't.