Microsoft Break-up Broken

Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault) with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related break up of Microsoft ordered last year (story) that was subsequently reversed by an appeals court (story) which vacated the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
View : : :
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
34.
 
HA!
Sep 6, 2001, 19:57
anon@4.3
34.
HA! Sep 6, 2001, 19:57
Sep 6, 2001, 19:57
anon@4.3
 
Someone compared Marx with Hitler...

Blahahahaha... Sniff.. HAhahahahahaha...

Fact: Despite the name of the Nazi party Hitler's Germany was in fact capitalist in nature. What's Ironic is that at the time Nazi's and American's had much more in common than any other Allied power. Basically Hitler took power under a certain ideal and then changed the whole damn system. Do your homework Capitalist.
33.
 
Re: Microsoft etc.
Sep 6, 2001, 19:16
anon@134.197
33.
Re: Microsoft etc. Sep 6, 2001, 19:16
Sep 6, 2001, 19:16
anon@134.197
 
"Germany has produced several of the most evil men in history; from Immanuel Kant, to Karl Marx, to Hitler - all learning from the previous. I fear to see what comes next."

Yes, Germany has produced some of the most evil men in history, but I'm not sure why you rank Immanuel Kant up there with Hitler. I'm not arguing, I'm wondering

"If a company bought all of the PC makers, and then 'fixed' the prices, say, to a point where consumers were paying $10,000 per computer - competition would be created overnight by the equity markets, because there would be a lot of money to be made by undercutting that $10k price. Hell, I would start a PC company and undercut the price. This is why there can be no such thing as a harmful monopoly in a capitalistic political system. Beyond that, it is a corporation's right to charge whatever it wants to for *it's* product/s - it is called property rights, and without property rights there is no such thing as freedom. "

If someone fixed PC prices at $10K, and you sold them for a lower price, you would definitely prove to be severe competition to the $10K PC manufacturers.

BUT, with MS software, the situation is kind of different. It isn't just about money, it's about power and maintaining that power by unfair means.

No matter how good your software is, and even if you give it out for free, it's going to take way too long to make a difference. You will either go unnoticed and die out, or the process will be extremely slow, and will have to be carried on by other companies, not by yours.

"Steve Jobs and Apple could have filled the role Microsoft did, Jobs happens to mostly suck at business - or he would have positioned Apple to fill slot in the PC sector that Microsoft did (instead he chose to keep the market for Apple's products 'closed'). "

No, it was "Apple vs. IBM" AND "Apple vs. MS", not just "Apple vs. MS."

You point out that Apple failed because its system was closed, but what about MS? MS isn't all that open, either.

MS violates standards simply to gain control, and not because it provides a better experience to its customers. Customers could care less about Java standard compliance: As long as MS is in control, they'll use whatever MS provides.

Microsoft could just go with standards, instead of inventing its own, without damaging its revenue, or making an inferior product, but it chooses not to in an attempt to secure its monopoly.

The overall tone of your response shows that you seem to think capitalism is the savior of humanity. That's not true. You have to be more open minded than that. I sincerely hope you don't think humanity isn't going to progress past this phase in history.
32.
 
Re: Microsoft etc.
Sep 6, 2001, 18:58
32.
Re: Microsoft etc. Sep 6, 2001, 18:58
Sep 6, 2001, 18:58
 
LOL, I love how naive people have become. The simple idea that the government and economics are seperated is a joke. The Republicans belive government should always be stimulating the economy, with tactics such as trickle-on, oh, I mean trickle-down economics. I have no problem with Republicans believing this, just don't be so damn contradict of yourselves. "Seperation of government and economics", HA. Oh yeah, Bush's tax refund to stimulate the economy is a seperation? And BTW, may we dare remember what the time when there was a seperation was like. You need only look at William Randolph Hearst. Tell those from the depression era that government shouldn't get involved. Tell the children forced to work in sweatshop labor that government shouldn't get involved. YES, let them do what they want. This is a world where corporations can, and should do what they want. Much better world, yeah, right. People, the ends do not justify the means.

You don't seem to realize that our entire legal system is based off vague interpretations. It's how it has worked for 200 years. Just look at tort law. Some people are more guilty than others, and that determines outcomes (VERY vague summary of tort law, sorry).

The legal system is not just "so and so is guilty" and "so and so isn't." Many of us have broken many laws, yet never get prosecuted, does this mean the law should be thrown away? NO SPEED LIMITS BECUASE I HAVEN'T GOT CAUGHT, YIPPEE!

I see many laws as immoral, such as banning gays from getting married, but that doesn't mean you are free from prosecution if you break them.

And I am sick of the "Democrats are pro-government" statements. Both parties are. Actually, classic Conservatives are still quite for local government. But modern day conservatism wants just DIFFERENT government control. Liberals tend to believe in more fiscal (your hard earned money) control, while modern Conservatives believe in more social control (freedoms).

WOW, I was baffled by your statement that Karl Marx is one of the most evil people ever. WHAT!?!?! Have you actually studied any form of Marxism, or any other theory or field of study he developed? He is considered one of the greatest sociologists EVER! And never think Stalin followed Marx's Communism, Russia used the flawed system of Socialist Communism, just read George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

And I'm sorry to say, Jobs doesn't suck at business (oh no, don't confuse me with a Mac addict). But he virtually single-handedly saved Apple in the 90's. Ideas such as the iBook and iMac have revolutionized the computer industry. And the reason they didn't fill Microsoft's slot is because they follow different codes of ethics. Apple nearly killed itself after Jobs left, and they tried to "open up" Apple to clones. Nearly killed them.

One more point, why should the government step in with the Firestone/Ford cases??? Consumers chose to buy those cars, oh well, they paid a little less because of some cut corners, government stay out, Ford/Firestone didn't force consumers to use their products! (this is being sarcastic people)

"You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
-Indira Gandhi

This comment was edited on Sep 6, 19:05.
31.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 6, 2001, 18:37
31.
Re: This is good. Sep 6, 2001, 18:37
Sep 6, 2001, 18:37
 
microsoft meeting transcript:

mike: mr. ballmer we are too good a company its not fair to another business lets stop doing stuff.

ballmer: AAAAAAAAIEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

paula: mr. ballmer please. a man from another company called me today and he was crying. he said no one will buy his new operating system. let's please stop selling windows so he can make some money.

ballmer: paula you are dumb as gum.

mike: c'mon steve lets be ethical like mother teresa.

ballmer: did you know mother teresa was possessed by satan and had to have an exorcism.

mike: yea right. i'm sick of you steve.

paula: you are a mean boss, all you care about is the success of your company!

ballmer: i dont have to take this.

paula: why dont we discuss this rationally.

ballmer[pouty]: developers.

mike: excuse me? please steve, this is serious, we gotta give the little guy a chance.

ballmer: developers developers developers!

paula: i hate you steve! you are a mean man. me and mike are leaving.

mike: yea, this company sucks.

ballmer: AAAAAAHWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYEEEEE (break courtesy of Blue)
EEEEEEEYAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

this is the end. i was hiding inside a closet and i had a steno pad and a pencil so i took notes what they said. i'm glad to help.

This comment was edited on Sep 6, 19:17.
30.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 6, 2001, 18:29
anon@134.197
30.
Re: This is good. Sep 6, 2001, 18:29
Sep 6, 2001, 18:29
anon@134.197
 
#12: I'm afraid you don't understand...

MS did make things easier for users, but at what expense? It's virtually impossible to compete with them.

Do you honestly think a superior product has a chance to stand against MS? No matter how good it is, people will go "so what? It doesn't run xxx."

In order to break free of MS's restrictiveness, we need something fresh and completely new, and that would cost us compatibility. Sure, you could try providing some sort of emulation for Win32 applications, but good luck with that... if you want to do a good job, you have to think outside of the box and break free.

People won't go for that because MS has gotten too much control, due to a lack of competition (blame for that can be placed on MS's anti-competetive tactics.) Everyone knows how MS made it so Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS, even though it could. Good luck fighting with people like that.

The open source/free software movements have resulted in competing software being handed out for free, with no strings attached. What a concept? But no, not even that will make a difference. It would take a lot of money to compete with MS, even if you want to give out your goods for free. That's pretty unfair, IMHO, and it shows a major flaw in modern economic policy. Success should be determined more by function than by wealth. That's what capitalism technically strives to achieve, but in practice, it doesn't work that way.

It can be argued that free operating systems like Linux and the BSDs are not ready for prime time, and it's probably true. These operating systems are better targeted at specific groups of people than at the general audience, but efforts have been made to improve the desktop functionality of these systems, but it isn't really helping yet. Eventually, MS is bound to fall apart, but it's going to take way too long.

MS is going around nowadays calling open source a "cancer" and "un-American." Is that good? I don't think so. MS sees open source/free software as a threat, and it knows it can't compete fairly. Instead, they spread fear and lies. That's completely unfair. Business should be more ethical than that. If you're failing, don't attack your competition with lies, face up to it and accept it, then do something to try to improve your situation constructively.

If you put things in perspective, business is meant to serve the good of the people. If anything, business should be a slave to our good will, not the other way around. Business should help us, instead of us helping business out (under the pretense that it returns to us indirectly.)

I think the world is just going through growing pains. People of each time period felt their beliefs were right, but we all know that times change, civilizations collapse, thinking changes. People love to cling to capitalism as the ultimate solution, because if you don't completely agree with it, you might as well be a communist or something. But let's face it... it's not the best system around, it has tons of flaws in practice, and is eventually going to be replaced.

I'm not about to say that the open source movement might be responsible for this, as some radicals would, but I think looking at today's issues with intellectual property and corporate greed, you can see that a successful future will look very different.
29.
 
Microsoft etc.
Sep 6, 2001, 18:13
anon@209.3
29.
Microsoft etc. Sep 6, 2001, 18:13
Sep 6, 2001, 18:13
anon@209.3
 
"But this is the state of politics in the 21st century. Where cutthroat, greedy-ass corporations that only care about profit margins and how large their bank accounts are take a walk while regular people like you and me get screwed over trivial things."


Oh, you mean that the corporations are only interested in profiting, good for them - go corporations. How does a corporation in a free market profit? By uncoerced trade. Which means someone must make the decision to purchase (which means the option to not trade remains). Who do you think has raised the standard of living so dramatically in industrialized nations (and to the degree that a nation is free, the standard of living rises)? Why, corporations have; gee maybe they should be punished!

Define 'regular people.' There is no such thing as a 'regular person.' There are only individuals.

Oh and, comeon, you could at least quote Marx if you're going to be a collectivist. He stated all this in far more eloquent terms.

Someone that will rail against corporations who seek profit by free-trade, will proclaim that it is ok to take (rob) an individual's profit (earned wages) at gun point in the form of 'taxes.' Although they'll tend to say that it isn't necessary to use such language as 'force,' or 'robbery,' or 'gun point.'

The fundamental difference, is that in a free society, a corporation *earns* it's profits by voluntary trade; a government *takes* taxes at gun point. It is the difference between economic power, and political power - something that extremely few individuals understand.

---

"Microsoft and their linked corporations had a virtual monopoly. Do NOT try to deny this. What's happening now? A government that once tried to do the right thing in getting them to break up is suddently their biggest fan, all because of a leader change."


There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly in a free market. It is a coercive monopoly, which can only be created by the government, that is a problem. For instance, the power generation and distribution system in America is mostly ruled by coercive monopolies, who are protected by the threat of force. Other industries that have been treated the same way include telecom, aerospace, and the railroads. Microsoft is one of the first corporations to have gained a significant (near monopoly) share of a market without the assistance of the government (through franchises, subsidies, etc.); Intel is another.

You have a warped sense of "the right thing," of course this coming from someone that believes it is ok to initiate the use of force (force being what supports the government's ability to institute regulations on the economy).

---

"Thanks to this and many other incidents that protect businesses at the expense of the common citizen, it's no longer the United States of America."


Define 'common citizen.' Does that not include the individuals who work for Microsoft that are being punished? (what do you think a corporation is anyway? it is a number of individuals working together) Apparently not, you little collectivist. It is the United States of America; but the remnants of what made this country great - capitalism - are being obliterated. It is often wondered what has enabled America to achieve the greatest level of prosperity, political stability, and freedom in the history of the world, it is capitalism (and a limited version at that).

The greater the level of capitalism present in a political system, the greater the level of freedom. Red China? no capitalism... no freedom. Soviet Russia? no capitalism... no freedom. Nazi Germany? no capitalism... no freedom. Most of Africa? no capitalism... no freedom (the lack of property rights being why Africa is a mess, property rights being a fundamental part of capitalism). The connection isn't difficult to make. Why has Europe been going in a cycle of destruction for 1500 years? no capitalism (which leaves force, i.e. seizure and plunder as the only means to acquire wealth; which is what Hitler and all the tyrants before him attempted).

---

"Makes me re-affirm my anarchist beliefs every goddamn day..."


Anarchy leads to multiple factions fighting eachother in tribal warfare, rather than one constitutionally limited government whose job it is to protect individual rights (individual rights being something that can only be violated by the use of force, and corollaries to force).

---

"Well I'll be damned, money really can you buy you everything. I wonder whose palms MS greased to get the previous ruling overturned? I'm sure President Bush is going to have a larger than normal campaign budget for the next Presidential election. Gee, I wonder where he will be getting all of his money?..."


Microsoft shouldn't have to buy off anyone; there should be seperation of state and economics for the same reason there is a seperation of state and religion. No, money won't buy you everything; it won't buy you rationality, integrity, or self-esteem.

---

"He he, didn't expect anything else from Bush & Co. Ahhh, there's nothing like a solid corrupt government. U-S-A,U-S-A,U-S-A,U-S-A.....
*Flo is from germany and you shouldn't take his comments about US politics too serious*"


Your disclaimer doesn't let you off.

Germany has produced several of the most evil men in history; from Immanuel Kant, to Karl Marx, to Hitler - all learning from the previous. I fear to see what comes next.

---

"I will try to avoid any one-sided comments and say that I do think it is important that we have regulations to make things fair, that there are adequate punishments for those that break these regulations, and it's important that we continuously watch both sides of the equation."


This is the classic "don't go to extremes" argument. The bit about "one-sided comments" is another way of saying it. You say you will try to avoid one-sided arguments; what if one side of the argument is correct, will you avoid it?

Evil by itself is impotent, middle of the roaders give it power; in any mixture between good and evil it is only the evil that has something to gain - middle of the roaders act as the delivery device for the evil.

You think it is ok to punish someone who breaks regulations? What if the regulations are wrong, immoral or evil? Which in this case they are; anti-trust laws (beyond being immoral) are impossible to follow, and are so on purpose. Anti-trust law was established to give politicians further power over the economy (and tens of thousands of controls have necessarily spread from there).

Anti-trust is a realm of law where one only knows they are guilty afterward. Every business is guilty of some violation when it comes to anti-trust, it is an issue of who gets prosecuted. Here, you try and comply with this (and then make sure you understand every single prior anti-trust case):

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm

---

"Antitrust cases were made to prevent one company from buying say all PC markets and then 5xing the price."


The amount of existing, erroneous information on how the free market works is ridiculous.

If a company bought all of the PC makers, and then 'fixed' the prices, say, to a point where consumers were paying $10,000 per computer - competition would be created overnight by the equity markets, because there would be a lot of money to be made by undercutting that $10k price. Hell, I would start a PC company and undercut the price. This is why there can be no such thing as a harmful monopoly in a capitalistic political system. Beyond that, it is a corporation's right to charge whatever it wants to for *it's* product/s - it is called property rights, and without property rights there is no such thing as freedom.

A corporation in a capitalistic system has no ability to block new competition from entering the market, and if they try to by using force, it is the government's job to retaliate.

Microsoft doesn't see a lot of competition in the operating system market for a couple of reasons. They don't charge a price that is high enough, such that a new company has incentive to make the huge investment necessary to compete with them; and while there is a lot of money to be made, Microsoft's product satisfies what consumers want (that is, the quality of the product is such that consumers, in the tens of millions, buy it). Linux is presenting a potentially superior overall offer: cheaper and better quality, and it is gaining market share in the server market for such reasons.

Steve Jobs and Apple could have filled the role Microsoft did, Jobs happens to mostly suck at business - or he would have positioned Apple to fill slot in the PC sector that Microsoft did (instead he chose to keep the market for Apple's products 'closed'). Microsoft's competition has completely failed to compete - Sun, Oracle, AOL, etc. whine and complain, but haven't created an operating system in an attempt to rival Microsoft.

The funding of the government attack on Microsoft by their competition is an issue of envy.
28.
 
Re: xp rules
Sep 6, 2001, 17:41
28.
Re: xp rules Sep 6, 2001, 17:41
Sep 6, 2001, 17:41
 
Notice the only things he can compare it to are other versions of Windows.

Case made.

-tAE-

Avatar 473
27.
 
Damn
Sep 6, 2001, 17:40
27.
Damn Sep 6, 2001, 17:40
Sep 6, 2001, 17:40
 
And I was really hoping we could get this shit down to being bite-sized.

As it is we're going to have their big electronic dick up our asses for decades to come.

Moving to Linux....

-tAE-

Avatar 473
26.
 
Microsoft campaign contributions
Sep 6, 2001, 16:54
Bronco
 
26.
Microsoft campaign contributions Sep 6, 2001, 16:54
Sep 6, 2001, 16:54
 Bronco
 
As some people have been wondering if Microsoft has bribed the Bush administration into reversing the breakup I looked up some info from the Federal Election Commision.

1991-1992 Election Cycle
PAC: $18,750
Soft: None
Individuals: $34,533
Total: $53,283/ 79 percent to Democrats
Where did they rank: Sixteenth


1993-94 Election Cycle
PAC: $32,741
Soft: $10,000
Individuals: $63,743
Total: $106,484/ 71 percent to Democrats
Where did they rank: Eighth


1995-96 Election Cycle
PAC: $43,500
Soft: $77,995
Individuals: $113,989
Total: $235,484/ 54 percent to Democrats
Where did they rank: Seventh


1997-98 Election Cycle (Based on data downloaded from the FEC on 5/1/98)
PAC: $21,500
Soft: $179,316
Individuals: $97,403
Total: $298,219/ 67 percent to Republicans
Where do they rank: First

The ranking relates to other computer companies.

You can see this info for yourself at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v4/alrtv4n18.asp

And here's info on last years election

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti306.htm

Looks like the really jumped into the pool with both feet.


Snappy2Stroke

This comment was edited on Sep 6, 17:00.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
25.
 
Re: Boooo
Sep 6, 2001, 16:43
Bronco
 
25.
Re: Boooo Sep 6, 2001, 16:43
Sep 6, 2001, 16:43
 Bronco
 
Is it just me or do these message boards contain a disproportionately high number of right wingers and libertarians? (judging by past discussions, too.

I believe that if you looked at the demographics of the posters here you find that the majority are white males, 18-35. That tends to be where the 'right-wing' are in the majority.

When I was in college I tended to lean left of center. Now I have a family and all the expenses that go along with it. When I look at my paycheck each week I think to myself, if the government has a surplus, (which means it took in too much money) why should they be allowed to keep it? What would stop them from taking even more to get a larger surplus? So now I'm right of center because I'm paying the bills and trying to save a little at the same time. Not because I want to see people starve or not get medical care, because I work really hard in a very demanding business and feel that I should hold onto as much of the money as possible.

Snappy2Stroke

--It is a far,far better thing that I do,than I have ever done;it is a far,far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
24.
 
Re: Greasy Palms
Sep 6, 2001, 16:32
Bronco
 
24.
Re: Greasy Palms Sep 6, 2001, 16:32
Sep 6, 2001, 16:32
 Bronco
 
I feel dirty and ashamed I make my living off of using their software.

I truly feel bad for you. For 2 years I worked directly under some truly evil people (owners of a commercial construction company). Finaly out of disgust I quit, and spent about six months unemployed (with a family mind you) until I found a better place to work.

If you really feel that strongly about something change try to change your situation, believe me it can be done.

I'm not pretending to know your situation but the last thing you should feel about your work is dirty and ashamed.

Snappy2Stroke

--It is a far,far better thing that I do,than I have ever done;it is a far,far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
23.
 
Re: Greasy Palms
Sep 6, 2001, 16:11
23.
Re: Greasy Palms Sep 6, 2001, 16:11
Sep 6, 2001, 16:11
 
What's funny is that it's actually the REVERSE. Bush is just undoing the wrong wrought by Gore, Clinton, and those crooks that we were stuck with for EIGHT YEARS!

22.
 
Libertarians
Sep 6, 2001, 15:29
anon@207.13
22.
Libertarians Sep 6, 2001, 15:29
Sep 6, 2001, 15:29
anon@207.13
 
The reason there are so many conservatives and libertarians on these boards is that generally more intelligent people hang out here (flames to /dev/null thanks)

As a flag-flying card-carrying libertarian I say (And I echo my macroeconomics professor) "any time government tries to regulate the market, it messes something up". Be that price controls, anti-trust investigation etc etc. Leave the market alone and it will fix its-self.

Don't even get me started on the continuing BS from the Democrats about "eating into the surplus" remember why there is a surplus, government is taking too much of our money, remember that we have always, always, allocated parts of the surplus to the general fund, that we would be increasing national debt if the Dems were still in charge (they NEVER had plans for a balanced budget), and that social security and education and all the other government payouts had the standard 4% INCREASE in spending. Remember that next time you watch the liberal media. Didn't mean to get off on a rant there, but as a governed people it is our duty to pay attention to, and evaluate critically what government is doing. That way we know what is the truth and what is not.


S.
21.
 
Re: Greasy Palms
Sep 6, 2001, 14:33
Flo
21.
Re: Greasy Palms Sep 6, 2001, 14:33
Sep 6, 2001, 14:33
Flo
 
He he, didn't expect anything else from Bush & Co. Ahhh, there's nothing like a solid corrupt government. U-S-A,U-S-A,U-S-A,U-S-A.....
*Flo is from germany and you shouldn't take his comments about US politics too serious*

Supporter of the "Chewbacca Defense"
20.
 
Greasy Palms
Sep 6, 2001, 14:17
20.
Greasy Palms Sep 6, 2001, 14:17
Sep 6, 2001, 14:17
 
Well I'll be damned, money really can you buy you everything. I wonder whose palms MS greased to get the previous ruling overturned? I'm sure President Bush is going to have a larger than normal campaign budget for the next Presidential election. Gee, I wonder where he will be getting all of his money?...

MS are the scum of the earth. I feel dirty and ashamed I make my living off of using their software. I know there are some very talented people working within the hallowed halls of Redmond, but MS represents everything that is bad with big business.


19.
 
It's sad...
Sep 6, 2001, 14:12
19.
It's sad... Sep 6, 2001, 14:12
Sep 6, 2001, 14:12
 
But this is the state of politics in the 21st century. Where cutthroat, greedy-ass corporations that only care about profit margins and how large their bank accounts are take a walk while regular people like you and me get screwed over trivial things. Microsoft and their linked corporations had a virtual monopoly. Do NOT try to deny this. What's happening now? A government that once tried to do the right thing in getting them to break up is suddently their biggest fan, all because of a leader change.

This is what makes me sick about America these days. Thanks to this and many other incidents that protect businesses at the expense of the common citizen, it's no longer the United States of America. It's Corporate America, and we "elect" a new CEO every 4 years... we elect his staff (House and Senate) every 4 or 6 years out of a lineup of mostly very photogenic people with a winning smile, a silver tongue, and a vacuum between the ears... however, all of them must have one thing in common (and there are VERY few exceptions to this): they can NOT give one flying f*ck about the people that they supposedly represent. Rather, they SHOULD give a f*ck about the corporations that paid for their mud-slinging ads that get splashed all over the TV set every 10 minutes for a year straight, because if they don't, they'll never see office again.

Makes me re-affirm my anarchist beliefs every goddamn day...

"The devil is in all of you!" - Rob Zombie, "Demonoid Phenomenon"
"We can do this one of two ways. There's the hard way, which involves hours of discussion, tons of negotiation, half a dozen bribes, and no guarantee of success."
"What's the easy way?"
"Liberally placed high explosives."
18.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 6, 2001, 13:54
anon@216.148
18.
Re: This is good. Sep 6, 2001, 13:54
Sep 6, 2001, 13:54
anon@216.148
 
Yes, most definitely. A couple more for good measure.....

http://www.fee.org
http://www.reason.org
17.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 6, 2001, 13:42
17.
Re: This is good. Sep 6, 2001, 13:42
Sep 6, 2001, 13:42
 
Of course. Its impossible for MS to be better off without making someone else better off (free market stuff).


Heh #14 your my kind of person. But let me add FEE.ORG to the mix.

This comment was edited on Sep 6, 13:43.
16.
 
Re: Boooo
Sep 6, 2001, 13:24
16.
Re: Boooo Sep 6, 2001, 13:24
Sep 6, 2001, 13:24
 
Ha ha, well said.
Is it just me or do these message boards contain a disproportionately high number of right wingers and libertarians? (judging by past discussions, too.) I guess FPS gaming and left-leaning ideology do not necessarily go hand in hand...

Proud to be a pinko,

apeman

This comment was edited on Sep 6, 13:25.
Avatar 4021
15.
 
Re: Boooo
Sep 6, 2001, 13:14
anon@65.89
15.
Re: Boooo Sep 6, 2001, 13:14
Sep 6, 2001, 13:14
anon@65.89
 
So, how long have been on the public dole? When you are actually PAYING taxes and not collecting them, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune.
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older