descender wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 17:31:
Capitalism is the way to live prosperous? Greece went bankrupt because of capitalism. Spain went bankrupt because of capitalism. The entire Euro Zone is going to collapse because of capitalism.

Capitalism creates divide, nothing more. Haves and have nots. That's a better life?

Not everyone using the public systems available to them are "leeching. Yes, leechers should be dealt with. Most people use those systems to vault back into the mediocrity of the lower middle class.

Go capitalism.!

descender wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 15:32:
Right, as long as there is money to be made, you're all for it. Fuck it all if people are starving or sick though.

sfhand wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 13:57:
socialist loving douches???

What is wrong with socialism? You don't approve of the commons? You don't approve of your local police department? Nor our military? Nor fire departments? Nor our highway system? Libraries? Schools? Parks?

and no, I'm not voting Democrat or Republican...

I'm making a tee shirt:

Just say NO
to organized crime
vote 3rd party

cappy wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:32:

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.

So I assume since you're arguing from a fiscal conservatism standpoint that you're very critical of Reagan and George W. Bush (along with Obama), but would praise both H.W. Bush and Clinton. For consistency, at least.

jdreyer already pointed out earlier in the thread about a survey where self-identified Republicans (who probably consider themselves "conservative" but probably more from social viewpoints than fiscal ones) are alarmed about the state of the budget but don't want to cut spending or raise taxes - either or both of which would be needed to balance a budget. I don't ever want to be stuck sitting in the middle of a railroad crossing with a person like that at the wheel, because they will neither want to go forward nor back.

Some folks aren't getting jobs because, well, because jobs are hard to find. That's why we have unemployment rates. Not because people are too lazy and stubborn to bring the unemployment rate by forcing companies to hire them when the companies don't have openings.

While I've no doubt anyone can point to a local grocery store that could use a few more part-time sackers and cashiers - those kinds of jobs don't replace a lot of the ones that were lost. And those kinds of places don't like to hire "over-qualified" workers anyway. That's assuming the grocery store even wants to hire more sackers and cashiers. Businesses have focused more attention on increasing productivity with leaner crews for many years now, and this becomes especially true during recessions.

Apple is being sued by the federal government - I'm sure you'll be happy to hear and I'm surprised you haven't. It's an anti-trust lawsuit relating to violations of the Sherman Act. They are alleged to have colluded with the largest publishing firms in the U.S. in a price-fixing scheme. Apple and two publishers have chosen to fight it in court (or likely, delay and eventually settle). Two publishers settled. One publisher is state's witness and turned over plenty of documentation that was quite revelatory about executives promising to "double-delete" incriminating emails while Apple executives did "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" meetings with them.

As far as those who pay taxes, remember that many of the largest Fortune 500 firms pay no taxes. There are a good many low-income Americans who pay no federal income taxes as well. Although whenever people like to trot that one out, they conveniently overlook that this demographic has a very large percentage of retired people. But I suppose after working all their lives, they should still continue to pay federal income taxes so people won't spit on them for shirking in their later years. Also, a large cohort of students and late teens early in careers or working part-time jobs - many or most of whom gravitate into federal-income-tax-paying work. And most are paying payroll taxes, as well as state sales and consumption taxes (since virtually every state has sales taxes) as well as indirect taxes like property taxes which are embedded in rents - since most people in lower incomes rent rather than own property.

cappy wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:01:

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.

Obama didn't bail out the auto industry. Remember that TARP and all the accompanying bailout legislation happened in the last quarter of 2008 under President Bush. When Obama took office several months later, he continued those programs and expanded some of them:

Auto Bailout Timeline

As far as Buffett being a "liberal" - that's completely debateable. Let's see - on the conservative side of the coin, he is quite wealthy and always expanding his massive business with new opportunities. He buys companies because he believes they will be profitable, not because he sympathizes with their goals or politics. He took major stakes in Goldman Sachs and other firms that no liberal investor would touch. He lives in the same house in Omaha he's owned for decades, and rather modestly - especially when compared with people on the coasts like Ellison or Trump. In other words, he is personally and fiscally conservative.

His social views are more progressive or liberal, but they're performed under the mantle of his conservatism. Like Bill Gates (with whom he's partnered for his philanthropy) he's doing careful and targeted approaches toward social spending - basically areas where they believe they can achieve return on investment in a big way.

When he argues for increasing taxes to what they were in the 1990s, somehow that's deemed "liberal" I suppose. But he's not advocating pre-1982 top rates of 70% or anything like that.

I would call him a conservative in virtually every major aspect of his life, with some liberal social leanings.

As far as "Obama hasn't passed a budget in 3 years" I believe you're getting that confused with the criticism the Senate has been taking for not passing a budget resolution for the past 3 years:

Wall Street Journal

Politifact

HuffingtonPost

And as far as the increase in debt, again - a good amount owes itself to TARP and other programs already put into place before he took office, as well as effects related to extending tax cuts and the general state of the economy. I suppose he *could* have just terminated TARP and reined in spending to see what would happen. But that's academic debate (mostly debated by non-academics) on Keynes vs. Friedman vs. whatever other economic school du jour is popular to prop up one's chosen policies.

A couple more balanced looks (that take issue with both sides):

FactCheck

Washington Post Fact Checker

I don't see anything conservative about "conservatives" who stridently cry out about debt and spending but then sheepishly shuffle their feet when it's pointed out that Defense Spending accounts for the greatest amount of discretionary spending. No one wants to cut that one. And realistically, no one really wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, either.

Instead, we get entertained with clown and pony shows - where ridiculous self-styled "conservatives" go on about pennies hidden between couch cushions (million-dollar programs allocated to some special-interest or another). We're assured that those "dollars add up" - except they don't. The entirety of Coburn's most recent "wasteful spending" opus would account for only about a day or so of interest on the national debt.

If someone wants to play real "conservative" - here's how:

If you want to balance a budget, you need to bring in more revenue, or make meaningful (and quite large and painful) cuts in spending. It's that simple!

But when the angry howls rise against raising taxes of any sort (never mind that even Reagan was ever pragmatic and doesn't get nearly enough credit for that and raised payroll taxes to shore up Social Security and Medicare for years to come), that sort of flies in the face of anyone being serious. I'd just as soon they just shut up. They can stay quiet and work on the problem if they want. But the puling and whining makes me want to spank the lot of them.

As far as cutting spending, they're big boys and girls and they know the rules. You don't get to cut just the other side's spending and leave your own intact. It doesn't work that way. So quit pointing fingers and work with the other side if they're really serious about it. Which they aren't.

Dev wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:35:

Jivaro wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:12:
I don't know if it is EA or not...

Its always EA. They are in the process of killing bioware like they've killed many many good studios before.

Kem!kaL wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:51:
Feel better RT?

"surrounded himself with socialist marxists"?
Jesus dude you sound like a lunatic.

I could care less, but really- the two parties have been this way forever, it's not "code" it's just a fact. He's a Dem- he thinks govt has a role, but that doesn't mean he's the Manchurian candidate, or a marxist.

No one call the Right fascist for the same reason- it's an extreme on the political spectrum. And they're not your enemies they're your freaking neighbors.

Settle the hell down and turn off the Limbaugh already.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:44:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:35:

Sepharo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:18:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
Do a search for politifact gm bail out.

Are you fucking kidding me

Read my post.

You're missing my point, had they restructured without Government bailing their asses out, the tax payers wouldn't be on the hook for billions that will never be paid back.

They would have been fine, and really it's their own fault for continuing to think they could rely on huge gas guzzlers while Japanese car makers like Toyota were making fuel efficient models.

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.

Dude. I'm sorry, but you're totally clueless.

1. There was no one else to bail out GM or Chrysler. The gov't was lender of last resort. If no one had done it, GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated and Ford would be the only US car maker left. Bankruptcy is death for an automaker, b/c no one will buy their products. It's estimated that a half million jobs would have been forever lost and that would rain suffering on millions of people.

2. Almost every government bailed out at least part of its auto industry. France bailed out Peugeot and Renault. Japan bailed Toyota (Yes, even Toyota). Sweden bailed out Volvo and Saab. The UK bailed out Jaguar. Germany bailed out Opel. The point is this was a once in a lifetime world-wide event. This is the exact reason government exists, for these types of catastrophic emergencies. Yes, GM made some bad decisions, but not unrecoverable ones, nor ones that would have sunk them in a normal economy. This is how it's supposed to work.

3. The billions are being paid back and will be. With interest. The government makes money.

4. China would never do that, because sinking our economy would sink their economy. Besides, China owns only 8% of US public debt. If for some stupid reason they called it in, we could handle it.

5. Debt as a % of GDP is still lower than it was in the 1940s. It does need to be addressed, but it's more important now to GET THE ECONOMY GOING AGAIN. And you need to spend to do that. And when no one else is spending, the government has to be the spender of last resort. It's classic Keynesian economics. Spending recovers the economy, and you pay it back when the econ is strong. Austerity begets recession.

Also, too: Let the goddamn Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2013.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
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.

First, THIS GRAPH. Since Reagan, Republicans drive up the debt when they're in office. Dems stablize or reduce it. It's simple numbers.

Second, how much debt has Obama added? About a trillion: that's the total of ALL legislation Obama has signed. 4 trillion of that debt were things started under Bush that Obama is trying to bring to an end (wars in Afganistan & Iraq), or is continuing b/c we're in the Great Recession (Bush tax cuts).

Third, Obama has bent over backwards to appease Republicans and they obstruct at every turn. Obama offered 2 parts cuts to 1 part revenue increase as a deficit reducing measure, totally pissing off his base, and the Republicans still refused.

There is no compromise from them. There is no interest in governing or helping people. They are simply obsessed getting rid of the black, communist, Kenyan, America-hater in the Whitehouse and don't care who the hurt in the process.

Prez wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:55:
Bipartisan ranting aside, I have to say that being (mostly) fiscally conservative myself, I find Schilling's acceptance of public money to be at odds with his purported fiscal conservatism.

Most conservatives, believing that small business entrepreneurs are the backbone of capitalism, support government assistance of small business, generally in the form of small business tax breaks. These are people just like most everyone here who dream of starting their own business. Just as welfare - if used as intended as a short-term stopgap measure to get an underprivileged citizen or family back on their feet - is a good thing, "corporate welfare" as liberals seem to like calling it is a very good thing for aiding the little guy trying to start his or her own business in a tough economy. The key difference is that 38 Studios is (was) not a "small business" by any stretch of the imagination, and for them to receive taxpayer money was a travesty imo.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
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.

First, THIS GRAPH. Since Reagan, Republicans drive up the debt when they're in office. Dems stablize or reduce it. It's simple numbers.

Second, how much debt has Obama added? About a trillion: that's the total of ALL legislation Obama has signed. 4 trillion of that debt were things started under Bush that Obama is trying to bring to an end (wars in Afganistan & Iraq), or is continuing b/c we're in the Great Recession (Bush tax cuts).

Third, Obama has bent over backwards to appease Republicans and they obstruct at every turn. Obama offered 2 parts cuts to 1 part revenue increase as a deficit reducing measure, totally pissing off his base, and the Republicans still refused.

There is no compromise from them. There is no interest in governing or helping people. They are simply obsessed getting rid of the black, communist, Kenyan, America-hater in the Whitehouse and don't care who the hurt in the process.

Sepharo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:18:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
Do a search for politifact gm bail out.

Are you fucking kidding me

Read my post.

Sepharo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 19:53:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
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.

You don't really know what you're talking about.


Global auto industry crisis 2008-2010
U.S. in 2008-2010 auto industry crisis

Bush put $17.4 billion into the bailout using executive powers to redirect TARP money after the Senate rejected the bill (a rare thank you to Mr. Bush!). Both Chrysler and GM filed for bankruptcy. Obama later put $21.6 billion into the bailout and fired GM's CEO. Chrysler has since "repaid its loans" years ahead of schedule, unfortunately GM owes much more still but it's still paying it off and has since become the #1 auto maker in the world again.

All that said, the numbers are all over the place and the bailout wasn't any one loan or event. It was over years and for various different reasons and funding sources... PolitiFact has more.

So yeah billions still to be paid off but I think saving a national industry and an entire metro region of about 5 million people was worth it especially considering what a huge success it was. Meanwhile Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney writes a fucking article in the top paper of his "home" state shitting on the people there and then after the successful bailout changes his name to Mitt "I’ll take a lot of credit" Romney. What a piece of shit.

Cutter wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 13:53:
Typical conservative hypocrite. Talks a good game about personal responsibility but when it comes down to it it's as always, 'do as I say, not as I do'. I love how these clowns are screaming about less government and picking oneself up by ones bootstraps untill the moment they get to stick their nose into the public trough and have that same government bail their asses out - meanwhile making certain the real working people remain screwed over. There are only two kinds of conservatives, the rich and the stupid.

NKD wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 17:04:

Cutter wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:54:
Now you know why clowns like Krowen are on ignore. He's obviously Mike Morhaime.

Fixed.

Also, yeah, I don't see much Pay to Win about this. Even with XP boosts, or certs, or whatever. If it can be obtained in-game in a reasonable amount of time, I give zero fucks if someone wants to blow extra money to get it quicker. We'll see what happens when they announce their business model formally, but I don't see them doing anything ridiculous on the P2W front.

bhcompy wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 11:57:
I'm sorry, "Pay to win" is when you can do things like buy superior weaponry that is only available with cash. Increasing your xp gain is not pay to win, it's called operating a free to play game and actually remaining viable and in business.

Silicon Avatar wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 12:23:
The news headline should read: Professor freed to find university that teaches climate change skepticism. Fox's favorite toy, the free market, will surely solve his unemployment problem.

Cutter wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 15:17:

RollinThundr wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 15:09:

Cutter wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:54:

Verno wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:06:

Krovven wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:00:
But this requires an always-on connection. Bunch of hypocrites. Yea I'm looking at you Cutter

I can only assume you're referring to Diablo 3 which is not a massively multiplayer game like this and has singleplayer game functionality. If the comparison was to WoW then perhaps it would be more valid but I don't see how hes being hypocritical.

Guild Wars 2 would be a more apt comparison as it does feature some instancing but even that has very high player counts that would likely put it in the MMO category.

Now you know why clowns like Krowen are on ignore. He's an obvious troll. Or simply too stupid to grasp the difference between single-player and multi-player games and why an online connection is required for one, but not the other. Do yourself a favour and put him on ignore.

And how the fuck does buying different coloured headlights for your vehicles help you win? There is nothing pay to win about this game. Nothing. XP boosts? So what? You can still max out without ever purchasing them. Jesus, if you people are going to be so pissy and butthurt about such little things do us a favour and don't play. Take your ball and whine all the way home. More fun for the rest of us.

Cutter you shit on MWO for XP Boost and cosmetic differences in mechs. That's all I was getting at. I'm pretty interested in PS2 myself, but the consistancy of some of you guys is pretty humorous to say the least.

No I didn't. I said it was probably the worst F2P package I'd ever seen. And there are major differences between the two in price, what buying stuff means, size and scope. It's why everyone will be playing this and no one will be playing MWO.

Cutter wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:54:

Verno wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:06:

Krovven wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 13:00:
But this requires an always-on connection. Bunch of hypocrites. Yea I'm looking at you Cutter

I can only assume you're referring to Diablo 3 which is not a massively multiplayer game like this and has singleplayer game functionality. If the comparison was to WoW then perhaps it would be more valid but I don't see how hes being hypocritical.

Guild Wars 2 would be a more apt comparison as it does feature some instancing but even that has very high player counts that would likely put it in the MMO category.

Now you know why clowns like Krowen are on ignore. He's an obvious troll. Or simply too stupid to grasp the difference between single-player and multi-player games and why an online connection is required for one, but not the other. Do yourself a favour and put him on ignore.

And how the fuck does buying different coloured headlights for your vehicles help you win? There is nothing pay to win about this game. Nothing. XP boosts? So what? You can still max out without ever purchasing them. Jesus, if you people are going to be so pissy and butthurt about such little things do us a favour and don't play. Take your ball and whine all the way home. More fun for the rest of us.