Valsuelm

I have been following this story. Hugo Chavez was a bit of a mixed bag from a good leadership perspective. There was no doubt he did a lot of good to uplift the poor people in his country and ensure the middle class got a good deal. But he was vociferously anti-western and didn't allow any fair political contestation in his country. He controlled the press and what his citizens really knew about the state of the Venezuelan conomy. He had no issues with aligning imself with anyone opposed to Western countries like North Korea. But he definitely had an entertaining and flamboyant personality. Who remembers the one time at the UN when he accused George Bush of being the Devil and leaving behind the smell of sulfur ( it was embarrasing but funny the way he said it) His war on some of the press was the result of the failed US sponsored coup in 2002. The press he's reported to have suppressed in most of the western media was bought and paid for propaganda by those who are pro foreign (especially US corporate) interests, and much of the upper class elite in Venezuela that benefits from the foreign oil interests there at the expense of most of the rest of the people of that nation. I recommend watching the documentary 'This Revolution Will Not Be Televised'. The raw footage of the puppet government that was put in place for a little while during the coup, and the footage of the 'free' (foreign owned) press that backed that coup speaks volumes.

Eh. It wasn't necessarily hostile, though I don't know his intents. There are a great many brainwashed Americans, but the per capita brainwashed rate is at least as high in almost every other nation on earth as it is in the U.S., and in many places much higher. The next global spanning war will be fought with nukes, biological weapons, and other weapons we have yet to see, some of which may be arguably worse than nukes. It will also be fought conventionally, and manpower will take a much larger role than many would think. Unlike past major wars it will have few determined lines, meaning you will be unsafe almost anywhere. The sources of some of the nukes as well as other very ugly attacks on large civilian populations will be both indeterminable in some cases and false flagged in others. It will be hell on earth. And the U.S. will be very defeatable. They are very defeatable. So is NATO. And as time goes on they will become moreso if the trends of the last few decades continue as the west is pissing away it's industrial base (a crucial factor in a war). Those that could potentially do it, won't though as it will start a war that ultimately almost no one will win. More and more though it looks like that war is coming as the 'leaders' of this world are mostly made up of bought and paid for lunatics who are constantly beating the war drums. And of course the economy is collapsing almost everywhere, currency wars are already underway, and trade wars are on the horizon. All of which historically leads to hot and heavy warfare on a scale the world hasn't seen in well over a half century.

That doesn't make it right. Income redistribution or any kind of personal income tax at all doesn't strengthen the economy in any way. Anyone who thinks so fundamentally doesn't understand how money works, or how the tax system works, and are naive to just how corrupt the system is. Would it be better if income was distributed more equitably throughout the populace? Most definitely. Income tax however is not how to achieve that. nor is it what it's currently used for. The video above presents nothing to anyone who even half way pays attention to what goes on. The one thing it offers is the final sentence 'The reality in this country is not at all what we think it is'. True, but not true. The guy who made the video is a communist, and the ideal he describes in the video is communism, not socialism. (Though the only major difference between the two is that socialists are generally just in denial of what they are (and many other things), someone who considers themselves a communist is usually at least honest with themselves.) He assumes everyone was as stupid as he was, so he says 'we'. 'Some of us' or 'Most of us' would be more accurate, this is the not true part. The very true part is that it is not at all what most think it is. If you want to wake up to what's really going on. It takes a lot of work. I recommend starting with any of the following documentaries you can find on the internet relatively easily, but eventually watch them all, and then start doing research from there on your own. Anyone who understands how the modern western monetary system works knows that personal income tax, or most any taxes at all on the National level on it's populace are little more than devices of control and leverage, and illusory ones at that. The bad thing is that so many buy into the illusion. Documentaries: The Money Masters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw The Secret of Oz Money as Debt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rUS465X8c The American Dream The Banker's Cabal (this one can be hard to find) Note: These are just the tip of the iceberg and I'd recommend doing a lot more homework than just watching them. But if you understand what's being presented, and doing so might not be easy as they present a reality that flies in the faces of what most believe (but most believe in fantasy), you'll understand that income tax is an evil that does not go to be used for what most people think it's used for, and a solution to no problems of the common man. Also, if you had a decent American History teacher in school and paid attention, much of what will be in the above Documentaries will tug at your memories from those classes. Unfortunately, most people are not lucky enough to have good history teachers, nor do most pay enough attention in any class. The documentaries focus largely on the U.S., however most of what they present is true for almost every nation in the western world these days.

It's not fake. it's a legitimately horribly written article, like so many others. The headline is very misleading and isn't backed up by what's in the article itself or reality in any way.

It does have something to do with it, but you don't need to be a millionaire to have it affect you. The problem is (and this depends on the nation abroad you work in), that in many places you get double taxed. If you live and work in England for example as a U.S. citizen you'll pay local income taxes, and then the IRS will expect you to pay them as well (though last I knew it was at a reduced rate). So in the case of many people in that article they're probably not fleeing the U.S. due to tax issues (as some high profile folks in France are for example), but already living and working in the U.K. and are tired of paying local taxes AND sending taxes back to the IRS. The same thing happens within the states. Some states that have state income taxes will expect you to pay income taxes on your income even if you earned most or all of it in another state if you reside part time or on paper in that state. While other states will expect you to pay their income taxes if you work in their state but reside in another. And some states (these days I'd wager all of the states that collect income taxes), expect you to pay in both situations. In some cases it's lead to lawsuits between the states themselves and individuals on who gets the right to tax individuals income. ie: there have been numerous issues over the years between New York State, New York City, and the various states around it (like NJ., Conn. and PA.) over who gets to tax the income of a person living in one state but that drives over the border to work in another. At some times people were expected to pay both taxes. What the situation is currently I don't know. Why I say it depends on the nation you live and work in is that some nations (most of Europe) it's harder to not let the IRS know what you're earning due to modern banking regulations, whereas in other nations it's relatively easy to not let the IRS know how much you didn't or did make, and you're free to attempt to hide your earnings. The IRS really shouldn't be taxing people on wages abroad. They didn't used to. Then again, I don't think the IRS should be taxing anyone's wages ever or that it should even exist, but that's another much larger subject. It shouldn't be hard for most people to imagine some resentment on behalf of anyone that's required to send taxes off to somewhere they aren't currently residing in, especially if that person is paying those taxes on top of the taxes that they're expected to pay where they are currently residing.

You're comparing the UK to the USSR? I never realised the UK was so similar. No, it was an analogy. Like most any other analogy, a direct comparison is not made, but a relative one was.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it. FWIIW I think you're presenting an overcomplicated view of one of the most ancient problems Monkey MkII has ever faced. I've been through terminal illness with loved ones. The most important thing any of them realised was that they were losing less than they thought. Having their illness dragged out is EXACTLY what upset them most. I can still hear the whirring of the morphine pump... I didn't present anything overcomplicated.... however I think you might look at things oversimplified if you think what I said was even a smidgeon complicated. Not everyone wants to rush into death's door, no matter how physically and/or mentally taxing whatever condition they may have. As much there is similarity between various end of life scenarios, each is unique. To each their own. Some wish to live on despite conditions others would find unbearable, some wish not to. Some want the Morphine or the like, some would rather suffer anything than to submit themselves to what morphine does. The choice, should be theirs. And I don't begrudge anyone for reaching for or rejecting the Morphine.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it. Hah, the hell are you talking about ? Was a jab at people sneering at these folk, ultimately in my experience it's boiled down to that concern over any altruistic sense. I was referring to this: Nah, they care. It's their tax money being wasted to treat the scum that eat this food, after all.

The article is mostly bunk. While many Americans may be looking to leave now more than ever, I doubt any of those looking to live in England over the U.S. are doing it solely for tax purposes. That said, the tax issue is a legitimate one. However, an American looking to flee to the U.K. over taxes or anything else is like a German in the 30s looking to flee to the U.S.S.R. for a better life. Situations can vary person to person though, and all is relative, so to each their own.

Constructive Criticism: Paragraphs are your friend if you want people to read what you write, and they allow you to organize your thoughts better. I humbly suggest you break up the above wall of text into a few more easily readable paragraphs.

If only that were true...

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it.

If you think Komrad Bloomburg's ban on soft drinks over a certain size is a good thing. Please please, move to an appropriate communist nation, where you'll fit in much nicer than a place where freedom is supposed to be had. It'll work out better for you, and for the people who actually want to live free to not have to bother to argue with you, or one day fight the likes of you in a civil war if too many of you keep getting your way. The government of a free people has zero business legislating , let alone dictating (which is the case with Bloomburg and his crusade against soda) what or how much someone can drink or eat. And again, the insanity of such a dictation is that it is assumed that one person consumes the entire drink. You now can't get a 2 litre with your pizza delivery in New York. Most pizzas are not consumed by one person, nor are most two litres of soda, at least not in one sitting. Nevermind that there are other things still perfectly legal that are worse for you to consume (and they should be 1000000% legal) in large or even small quantities. Nevermind the precedents set with Bloomburg's evil dictations that will likely see worse things to come if it's not overturned soonish.

No. Those are patients.

The use of Heroin or the abuse of another Opiate based drug is not akin to eating a hamburger. Selling something to someone that has close to zero health benefits in most people who is only looking to get high is not the same as selling someone some food (that does have health benefits) that may not be the healthiest thing for them to eat. That said. I'm all for legalizing said drug and most others. Prohibition is not the answer to the problem, and creates far more problems itself. But that is somewhat another subject. And that said, I do think people who profit off of other people's misery are at best, disgusting individuals. However, barring the relatively few instances where someone is coerced or forced to take a drug, drink more than they wanted to, or even eat something unhealthy they wouldn't normally eat, the onus is 100% on the individual who sought out and consumed whatever it is we're talking about. The spokesmen who died of heart disease (if that's what they indeed died of) were dying of heart disease long before they were ever the spokesmen of the restaurant we're talking about. Having a really fat person advertise your restaurant for you isn't exactly bad marketing. It's implied that they liked the food so much they eat a real lot of it. For some this reinforces the idea that the food might be good. While I wouldn't be swayed by it I can tell you after working with dozens for chefs in all manners of restaurants, with no exception in my personal experience (though I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there somewhere), all of the best chefs had more than a little meat on their bones. Also, there's no relatively common amongst the populace tongue in cheek joke that heroin will get you high and kill you, as there is that a great burger and fries is a heart attack meal. The marketing is based on that joke. The potential marketing you describe for heroin would not be. Indeed. I haven't had a good burger in ages, and now I want one after this thread. I may go find Five Guys later today (the best burger around where I currently am, but no where near as good as what you can find in Vegas). Exercise is really the key. You can eat a real lot of greasy food like burgers and fries if you get the exercise to burn that fat off. Fat is actually very good for you as long as you make use of it. Of course, if that's all you eat you're going to be in trouble in the long run. But that is true of just about everything. Variety is not only the spice of life, in meals it's key to living healthier along with exercise. My apologies for the formatting. Apparently multi-quoting now squashes text on this forum.

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview. I don't think Alex Jones is capable of shame. Or rational thought for that matter. I would be surprised that people actually believe in what he says, but I grew up in Texas(not too far from Ron Paul's district) so I have been exposed to some of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Fear porn addicts that believe in these conspiracy theories. Which conspiracy theories? Some conspiracy theories have quite a lot of fact to them. Some conspiracy theories are complete fantasy. Some conspiracy theories are propaganda. Some things that are called conspiracy theories aren't theories at all but 100% based in provable reality, but are called that to convince those that have been brainwashed that all 'conspiracy theories' are fantasy that what is being discussed is somehow a lie when it is anything but. While Alex is a bit off the wall at times, he's also very lucid at others. He, like most other people, is capable of rational thought. Most people don't realize that potential though often and let others do the thinking for them. I'm no great fan of the guy but I'd say Alex thinks quite a bit more (not always rationally, but not near as often irrationally as you accuse) than your average Joe. Ron Paul supporters and someone who listens to an agrees with Alex Jones are not one and the same. Of course there's crossover. There's crossover with just about everything. But the crossover between Ron Paul and Alex Jones fans is the exception and not the norm. A lot of Alex fans may support Ron Paul, but the reverse isn't as true. Saying a Ron Paul supporter is a fear pron addict or that's what Ron peddles is a gross misinterpretation of about everything the guy's ever talked about. Alex on the other hand does occasionally engage in 'fear pron', but no more so than your average politician. The type of fear mongering that Alex engages in however, generally is a bit closer to reality than the type of fear mongering most politicians will engage in.

You guys obviously haven't been to Vegas much. I used to live there, and still go to visit. Vegas is marketed as a land of excess in general. It's a tourist Mecca. Tourists often want a little excess no matter where they are. And Vegas is a great place to vacation in the eyes of a great many, even many who don't gamble as there is a lot to do there other than gambling. Those burgers are small compared to others I've seen, and eaten. And no, I'm not a fat guy. Very large portions are a common thing at many restaurants in Vegas. Be they burgers, slices of cakes, a Margarita, a bowl of rice pudding, or most anything else one could eat or drink. And if you know where to go these portions don't cost much either. Many people who eat them (or rather in most cases attempt to eat them) are either tourists for the novelty of it, or do a nifty thing called taking some of it home for later in a To Go container. Or even more commonly, split the giant portion with a friend or loved one. Vegas is also the land of the all you can eat buffet. They are everywhere. And some of them are of extremely good quality. Something you'll find almost no where else. The marketing is a tongue in cheek joke. It capitalizes on a relatively commonly used tongue in cheek joke when referring to a really good meal that involves something from a deep fryer or a grill (something that some folks would tell you will kill you or shorten your life if you consume them). The phrase goes something like this: 'Ok! Who wants a heart attack!?!?' , and is something occasionally said by whomever might be serving up what many would consider a very tasty meal. And a common reply is 'Hell yea... I want one of those!', because it usually means a great cut of meat and/or high quality something from the frier (usually french fries). Then the burger and fries or something of the like is served up. Person eats, enjoys, and the vast vast vast majority of the time, like any other meal, they then go on about their business. They don't drop dead of a heart attack... There's nothing tasteless about what the restaurant does. It's good marketing. And having worked for years in the restaurant business as well as traveled extensively and eaten at hundreds of restaurants, I'd wager a bunch they have much better than average burgers and fries. That's certainly what they're advertising. Places in Vegas have various hooks to get people in their doors. You need to realize that almost every single establishment in Vegas is at least a mini casino. Giving away free food or drinks is very common to get people in your doors where they'll play their games. The money lost giving away the products at a loss is generally more than made up for in profits from the gambling. People should be able to eat what they want. Eating just about anything in excess is of course a bad thing, however that choice should be left to whomever is doing the eating. That anyone would think to deny someone that basic human right smacks of evil and/or totalitarianism (Hi Mayor Bloomburg!).

Yea... the subjects discussed were largely what I don't like about where gaming is going. I find it strange that Feargus is so concerned about players not reselling their games. While yea, you want them to enjoy their game that they bought, places like Gamestop can actually help you in the long run by introducing people to your game that otherwise might not have played it. Many people resell their games (and other possessions) as they realize they have no use for them anymore (even if they enjoyed them immensely at one point), or just need the money. Not everyone collects their games, and wants to keep them forever. There is and always will be a place for 2nd hand stuff in the marketplace. The looking up to Bethesda is disconcerting. Their games embody most of what I don't like about modern games, and have very little that I do like in them.

Well... that's part of the thing. The real issue here isn't whether people are for or against 'gay marriage'. That's a red herring on many levels. Most of which are too deep for this forum. The real issue, that trumps this debate, is that the government should have zero say on the issue altogether. But that's something that a great many people who are for and against gay marriage can't wrap their heads around, because they're so indoctrinated into the 'debate'. Step outside the box if you can. The world would be a much freer and better place if whether one was or wasn't married to a he, her, or it wasn't an issue at all in any way shape or form in the eyes of the government.

The iron is no longer hot.

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

Obtaining a driver's license in any state is trivial in regards to driving prowess. Licensing drivers does little to protect folks on the road and a lot to allow the government serious leverage on someone's life. There a licenseless drivers in the many millions in our nation, especially out west where there are more illegal aliens. The roads are no more unsafe out there than they are in the east where there aren't as many drivers without licenses. The concept that requiring licenses of drivers make the roads safer is an illusionary concept.

I'll quote a random guy who posted a comment on the above story as he's 100% correct: ""Why did prosecutors seek 50 years in prison and $1 million in fines?" Because that's what they always do? It isn't like this case is unique. They will seek the absolute maximum they are allowed to under the law, not because they think it is what the person deserves, but because it gives them more leverage to force a plea deal. If congress doesn't like that, they should fix it. They're the ones making the laws that allow prosecutors to seek such absurd penalties. " I'd only add that it's not just congress, it's state and local governments as well.

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - Goethe

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees. Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting. And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat.