RollinThundr wrote on Dec 26, 2012, 20:13:

Cutter wrote on Dec 26, 2012, 17:08:

SlimRam wrote on Dec 26, 2012, 16:55:
*Jumps off my soapbox and yells at my woman, "MAKE ME A SAMMICH!!"

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

You mean Japan right?

Creston wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 21:25:

Trevellian wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 17:52:
it's an INFINITELY good thing for Star Wars fans that he will no longer be involved ever again.

Note that Lucas will still be a consultant.

Creston

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Sep 13, 2012, 01:33:

cappy wrote on Sep 12, 2012, 23:54:

Quboid wrote on Sep 12, 2012, 21:21:
Is there any reason why someone would switch to an iPhone now? I can see upgrading from a previous model may make sense if you're used to it and you have apps (which I assume transfer to new models), but if you don't have an iPhone, why? What innovation does the iPhone 5 have, over the 4S or over other high end phones? It evolves 4S many features but doesn't add anything new, does it? Is 4G new to the iPhone?

I wouldn't swap my old SGS2 for an iPhone 5, never mind my current SGS3.

Because Apple is at the cutting edge.

For instance, when the original iPhone was released, no one had 4G LTE. Now the iPhone 5 has it.

The iPhone 5 is also the thinnest smartphone ever (especially if you count the "hump" on the Motorola Razr and ignore a few other phones claim to be smaller, but in any event they probably aren't really, because how could they be?)

The iPhone 5 introduces the largest screen of any (i)Phone ever sold before. Let's see what the competition comes up with to beat that!

ICS (Android Ice Cream Sandwich) is simply a stripped-down version of iOS. Sure, it has a Capital "I" instead of a lower-case "i." But the second letter "C" is the giveaway. A "C" means "Average" for one thing. For another, the "C" in ICS is just 2/3 of the "O" in iOS. So it's like stripping down the middle of the "OS" and leaving you with just a "CS." Who wants that?

The Samsung Galaxy S3 is manufactured with pure forgetfulness while the iPhone 5 is crafted with care. As a result, a Galaxy S3 is like a kid sent to school who forgot his lunchbox. What? I only have 16GB of memory in this phone? I guess I'll just have to put into the phone what the phone was missing and do it myself. It's like the phone was half-assembled or something. How could they forget to put 64GB of memory into it? The iPhone 5 helpfully comes pre-packed with up to its maximum 64GB of memory. It's like the kid's mom calls out, "Hey, you forgot your lunch!" (kid runs back). "Gee, thanks, Mom!"

I'm sure there are other things, but this serves as a good overview.

This must be a troll post, lol.

So you dont have 64GB pre-installed. get a fucking SD card like the rest of the world and avoid paying a $200 premium to Apple for it while the price of NAND storage plummets year after year but in their "reality distortion field" every 16GB of additional phone memory is a $100 product their "fans" will eat up.

Quboid wrote on Sep 12, 2012, 21:21:
Is there any reason why someone would switch to an iPhone now? I can see upgrading from a previous model may make sense if you're used to it and you have apps (which I assume transfer to new models), but if you don't have an iPhone, why? What innovation does the iPhone 5 have, over the 4S or over other high end phones? It evolves 4S many features but doesn't add anything new, does it? Is 4G new to the iPhone?

I wouldn't swap my old SGS2 for an iPhone 5, never mind my current SGS3.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:35:

necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.

Because there wasn't anything to copy? They made a smart phone with a full screen that had icons on it. Apple didn't invent that.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:38:
Neither side wants to work with the other, and neither side is serious about cutting spending.

The dems only want to cut the military. repubs want to cut social spending, and really with how fucked up the welfare system is with the amount of loopholes it has, I dunno call me unfeeling or an asshole or whatever, but I kinda side more with the GOP on where to cut.

When I was growing up I was taught that no one is going to hold my hand or give me a life or a roof over my head, I was taught to work hard, and earn shit. People nowadays don't get that. They expect government to hold their hand.

I get it, you need some form of social net for those who can't work, or temporarily fall on hard times and need a hand, I have no issue with that. But our welfare system is completely broken and doesn't at all work that way.

I also have no issue with raising taxes since they're the lowest they've ever been pretty much.

The things I have a problem with however is increasing government size and them dictating how people should live, Bloomberg with his wanting to ban surgary drinks or snacks from movie theaters as an example. That tends to be what liberals are about on the social level. They want government to decide for them because god forbid they're responsible for themselves. That and the whole political correctness bullshit. Obama with his "Bush's fault Bush's fault I'ma go play some golf" Hey O, you've almost served a full term now, the Bush's fault excuse is wearing a tad thin. The libs gave Bush so much shit anytime he took a vacation or played golf, Obama's played over 100 rounds so far. The media could care less. MSN is so soft on the guy it's not even funny.

I also can't stand the people he tends to associate himself with. Marxists and socialists. Fact of the matter is aside from making the right call about going in after Bin Laden he's not kept one campaign promise, (and yes I realize they all lie, they're politicians that's what they all do regardless of party)

But for a guy who campaigned on transparency and turning this country around, he's done the opposite, spent even more than Bush, quicker than Bush, and has done more back room deals and played bipartisan games after preaching about working with the GOP and being a "transparent administration. Kudos on him sealing those fast and furious documents btw. Wouldn't want to paint himself in a bad light, especially if he was at all involved. Add in his love for the UN above his own citizens with his apologize for America tour and the kowtowing he does to anyone and everyone except Israel.

And please don't solely try to blame the GOP on passing a budget. Every single one of Obama's budget proposals has been unanimously defeated by both sides, 414-0, 97-0. The man is not a fiscal conservative by any means. His spending shows it. His own party won't even vote for his budgets. That should mean something.

On the Buffet thing, I'll start taking him seriously when he pays all the back taxes his company owes. Until then he and his secretary can eat a dick.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:07:
fact of the matter is, he did surround himself with socialist loving douches. He tends to lean quite a bit towards socialistic policy. You don't need to watch Limbaugh to do some thinking on that.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:03:
Spending trillions doesn't exactly instill confidence in consumers. Let the damn market correct itself. No Gov has to meddle and make shit worse like they do with every thing they touch, hey lets have them control healthcare too, they've done such a bang up job with medicare and SS.

Ford from what I understand didn't take any bailout money, and they seem to be doing just fine.

I'm actually fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire believe it or not. But at the same time I want to see both parties actually get serious about cutting spending. Which neither party seems to want to actually do.

on point 4, I realize that but still, it's pretty scary how much we've borrowed from countries that honestly don't much like us.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:15:
When a president leaves office, there's this thing called inheritance. That you buy into the "Obama's a fiscal conservative" line of bullshit the left is trying to feed people it's you're own damn fault.

The man surrounded himself at Harvard with Marxist socialists. I guess that makes him a free market fiscal conservative though right? Obamacare anyone? Hello? You know that unconstitutional healthcare bill that only hard lefties and his base of "Obama's gunna pay my mortgage" types want?

USA Today is generally liberal leaning and even they don't buy into it. http://tinyurl.com/7u437fs
"The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government's books." Hooray for fuzzy math.
oh and of course "Bush's fault"

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:35:
Like I keep saying, taxes aren't the issue, spending is. If China tomorrow said, pay us all the loans we've given you tomorrow we'd be fucked. And here you have Obama wanting to raise the debt ceiling again, our credit rating gets lowered for the first time in history, he adds 5 trillion to the debt, and that wasn't enough, he wants to do it again.

You honestly don't see a problem with that? Both parties are driving us off the cliff with spending, dems have the pedal to the floor.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
No no they haven't. They paid back some of it. Plain and simple the Government should have given them jack shit. It's humorous to me, that you liberals cry about corporate welfare but if a dem is at all involved. Hey it's ok!

The problem is spending, regardless of who the president is, we spend far far more than what we take in. Here you have a president who added 5 trillion to our debt in less than one term. You're fine with that. Yet cried like little girls about Bush's spending. If you're going to bitch at least be consistent with it.

Hell you have a president who hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years. Yet that's quite alright, let's just spend some more money it'll automagically fix the economy and hey let's blame corporations! Oh except Apple, because we liberals like our Iphones. Oh and the Rich people who pay the most taxes in this country, well they should pay more so those people too lazy to get a fucking job living on welfare can have some more welfare, because really, they're entitled to it.

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
Hold on a second. What most conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives complain about is rewarding those that refuse to work when they're capable of it.

I don't think anyone is against helping out small businesses (not that 38 Studios really fits into that category) or having a safety net for veterans or people who are truly disabled that can't work.

You're using the usual liberal stereotype that only Republicans are rich. Or only Republicans get corporate lobbying etc. Which is total bs. Oprah's pretty rich, Bill Cosby and most of liberal hollywood are pretty rich, Obama's certainly not a poor man. Warren Buffet, who's company owes billions in back taxes is a liberal last I checked.

Obama didn't need to bail GM out with tax payer money, they could and SHOULD have filed for bankruptcy and refinanced/restructured themselves. GM still owes the taxpayers millions, and guess what we'll never see it. The only entity that won out in that deal was the auto workers union, surprise surprise. Same thing with Crysler, the kicker there? Crysler is now owned by a European car maker.

The man added 5 trillion to the debt in 3 and half years. Has yet to pass a single budget since coming into office, has wasted tons on a failed stimulus, failed green energy companies, all on the tax payer's dime.

space captain wrote on May 30, 2012, 21:14:
its just like that movie!!!!!!!!!