What's that you say, Thomas Sowell?

"If anything, "the rich" have far more options for putting their money beyond the reach of the tax collectors today than they had back in 1921. In addition to being able to put their money into tax-exempt securities, the rich today can easily send millions -- or billions -- of dollars to foreign countries, with the ease of electronic transfers in a globalized economy.

"In other words, the genuinely rich are likely to be the least harmed by high tax rates in the top brackets. People who are looking for jobs are likely to be the most harmed, because they cannot equally easily transfer themselves overseas to take the jobs that are being created there by American investments that are fleeing from high tax rates at home.

"Small businesses -- hardware stores, gas stations or restaurants for example -- are likewise unable to transfer themselves overseas. So they are far more likely to be unable to escape the higher tax rates that are supposedly being imposed on "millionaires and billionaires," as President Obama puts it. Moreover, small businesses are what create most of the new jobs.

"Why then are so many politicians, journalists and others so gung-ho to raise tax rates in the upper brackets?

"Aside from sheer ignorance of history and economics, class warfare politics pays off in votes for politicians who can depict their opponents as defenders of the rich and themselves as looking out for working people. It is a great political game that has paid off repeatedly in state, local and federal elections.

"As for the 1920s, (Secretary of the Treasury Andrew) Mellon eventually got his way, getting Congress to bring the top tax rate down from 73 percent to 24 percent. Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government.

Sometimes sanity eventually prevails. But not always."

Basically it describes how people make money by producing nothing, providing nothing, and servicing no one.

If there were a lot of land available for farming and industrious small company could setup to compete, avoid futures and undercut everyone who plays in it. But the land, the seeds, and the lines of production are owned by one or two big companies.

Whole situation is crazy. Producing raw materials and goods, especially food, should be the number one thought...now how they can make money off the guys who produce by jacking the prices up and providing no benefit in doing so. Shipping things, good. Leaving things sit in the field or in a warehouse while the price goes up for the consumer but not the farmer because people are dicking with the market.....shouldn't fly.

Goes for oil futures as well. It's bullshit that some guy makes a buck off of oil that never changed it's location, state, quality, or anything else to make it worth more for legitimate reasons. And it's not like they hold on to this stuff like a collector would to preserve it, they might hold it for a day or a few months, but it's unlikely they hold it for a year.

And some how the scenario described in this video is so important and influential in the US it can kill the rest of the economy. Allowing it to continue is just stupid beyond belief, make all those guys take their money and invest in production or services if they are so knowledgeable.

the thing about "personal responsibility", is that it is used in very misleading, and brainwashed ways

the brainwashed way is the whole "you shouldn't have had a kid if you can't afford it" schpeel...

first, its moronic because it reduces the subject to $ figures... raising a child goes WELL beyond money, let alone the questions posed morally and on the scale of society itself... should only the rich (and yes, its expensive to have a child, outrageous actually, in the US... i'm not talking about the cost of feeding/clothing/education/etc... simply the procedures up to and including birth, let alone any issues that may arise afterwards both in mother and child - glad I live in a country where this is covered socially, and that I more than happily contribute to - our future isn't regulated to have/have nots)

second, as part of a society, do you feel you have a personal responsibility to it? or other members of it (irrespective of your opinion as to whether or not a particular person is "contributing" or not)? do other's in your society have a personal responsibility in regards to you?... the debate in the US literally ALWAYS boils down to someone arguing "personal responsibility" yet assuming none in regards to the society they "LOVE SO MUCH" and "WOULD DIE FOR"... that, or that if you give people handouts, that's all they'd ever want; they'd never strive

WELL, that is EXACTLY describing the situation of your (and I mean YOU, yes YOU) parent's raising you... did they keep all the receipts and calculate the interest you owe on top regarding food they fed you, education they paid for, etc? are they sending collectors yet?

better yet, can you honestly say you have no drive or ambitions in life because of being raised like this (as is the general norm)?

it provides a foundation, a base from which to launch... its two swimmers racing, one with something to push off of, and the other starting with nothing to push off of... sure the outcome isn't decided completely... but you can make a REALLY accurate guess as to who has the better chance to win... no one is throwing them a dragline while they are swimming... its just the start of the race

if you had a family member who got ill, would you help them? if the swimmer got cramps and couldn't stay afloat would you want someone to pull their head up above the water?

why this doesn't translate from being a staple of family life, to society should make most American's go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

the honest truth... it is GREED
both personal GREED of the average citizen not wanting to spend a cent on a fellow citizen
and corporate GREED... they see social programs and free health care as either a pool of money they don't got but WANT or robbery from them... and they lobby and basically buy off politicians through campaign financing and lucrative job offers post office... meanwhile you are sold that this is in the interests of your freedom... when really all you are being sold is the freedom to be F_CKED

Government is there to protect the INTERESTS of it's citizens, not it's CORPORATIONS (most of whom are multinational btw)... and it's failing Americans... mainly because Americans are failing themselves... they'd rather drink the kool-aid than question what's in it... they'd rather get worked up about side issues that really only affect their life MINIMALLY (mainly because of religion) rather than care about issues that do... and they like to bite people who question the status quo... why? because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!! USA USA USA. (despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary)

its really elementary logic to deduce that a society that tries to elevate itself by uplifting all members of that society (or as many as possible) will have a better survival chance than a society where all individuals horde and fight over resources... i mean, which one do you think leads to feudal style systems? really?

>> ^EMPIRE:

I know Texas get made fun of a lot, but is it really possible to buy the 2 weapons in this video in Texas? I'm really asking, I don't know, but it would seem overkill even for Texas standards.


The guy is in Georgia. Laws in regards to such things are the same, as in that they are not regulated at the state level, only federal. Anyone with a clean background and the cash can own them. Fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay the excise taxes and you're ready to go.


Also note, on stuff like explosive rockets and grenades, there is a $200 tax on each one, so it can add up fast...But there are limits on what is considered an explosive. Off the top of my head, I think anything under 1/4oz of powder and it's not considered an explosive. Furthermore, to have explosives, you have to have a proper magazine to store them, can't just keep them in your house.

So in other words, the things are so regulated to get and use, that you have to be smart enough to know the laws to get through the paperwork, and rich enough to be able to buy them. Unless you are a manufacturer, then you can do what you want. I have a hunch he is either a manufacturer, or son/relative of one. And whoever owns them is rich and has a lot of land. You'd be surprised at how many collectors there are with the same stuff, they just don't post it on Youtube

What amazes me are that he even has access to all these guns. Sure a collector may have some of there and in rare cases and rich collector may have all of these. So where is he getting them? He's to young to be a collector and acquire all of these on his own.

These have to be sponsored in some way. Advertisements from the companies that distribute and sell the guns maybe..???

Anyone have the scoop?

Once the novelty fizzles-out? A savvy collector may disagree, or many in a long line of self-proclaimed "experts" may determine this or that of her finger-painted play-time happy fun-time afterbirth interpretations but the long and short of her output to-date looks like Jackson Pollack stepped in front of a subway. Must agree with the gentleman that reminds that a 4-yr-old is simply having fun and going along for the happy-ride. Great way to introduce one's child to the so-called, "Art World" though.

Oh and, 6000 dollars for that cannon-blast of primary colors seems a bit much there sir-You could have taken some art appreciation classes with all that cabbage!!

>> ^MaxWilder:

Come on, the value of those paintings will sky-rocket after she dies. I'm sure the investors have that in mind.

I'm not hijacking a quote; rather, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus is contradicting himself here, which should come as no surprise to anyone else who's read the Bible. The Old Testament Law is binding forever: Genesis 17:19, Leviticus 23:14, Luke 16:17. But it also isn't: Luke 16:16, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:13.

There is some good stuff in in the Sermon on the Mount about loving thine enemy and not judging others, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who plans to cast all his enemies into a lake of fire forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "
Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
The semen on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says
I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "

Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The semen sermon on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says

I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.


*Fixed awesome typo

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

You mean this Sermon on the Mount, described in Matthew 5?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [...]
(Matthew 5:17-19)

I know there's a lot of debate about art critics and collectors spouting a bunch of crap about how she's a "master of color", and "oh, her intrinsic soulfulness belies her juxtaposition with grade school and man's inherent perspicacity"... it's all crap.

One thing's for sure though. Those paintings are really beautiful.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Sperm collector, eh? "I am not masturbating! It's for science!"
How do they collect eggs?


It's ironic that you said "For Science" because the first thing that it reminded me of is the Turrets from Portal...

"I'm different."
"Hello?"
"Are you there?"
"I see you!"

Sperm collector, eh? "I am not masturbating! It's for science!"

How do they collect eggs?

>> ^bobknight33:

Government employees should not be allowed to unionize. It just wrong. If you want to serve the government then fine. But don't soak the taxpayers by getting union wages and benefits. We work too. We have families to support. I don't need to support lazy union workers.

What evidence is there that anyone involved in a union in Wisconsin is "lazy"? Remember, you're talking about school teachers and trash collectors here.

Why is there any difference between public and private sector unions? In both cases they exist because people have a basic human right to assemble and negotiate contracts. Are public servants somehow not human in your mind? Don't they have families to support too?
>> ^bobknight33:
Unions are bad for any business. Look at all the major companies that have failed or have been greatly crippled such as the Steel industry, Auto Industry, Airline industry.

The Auto industry is a bit broad, Ford is doing great with unions still in place, and without any government loans. GM took a government loan, and is now doing fine with unions still in place. Chrysler's problems were that they kept making ugly, sucky cars, even when they were merged with Mercedes. Hopefully now that they've merged with FIAT, we'll see an improvement in the quality of their designs.

The Steel Industry I know a lot less about, but the main thing that killed them there was bad trade agreements. It's tough for a country that believes in worker safety and humane treatment of workers to compete with countries that don't really shy away from using slave labor to do labor-intensive high-risk work.

The Airline Industry is in trouble because oil is already fucking expensive, and will continue to get more so. We're likely to soon find ourselves in a world where only millionaires will be able to pay the ticket prices that would make air travel profitable for an airline.

But at the most fundamental level, I don't get your motivations here. Why do you see unions as being some sort of unmitigated evil, while lining the pockets of millionaires and billionaires as some sort of ultimate good?

>> ^taranimator:

I can't wait to see what happens after my kid sees this vid.


So, what happened?

Gotta love that scene with all the reapers in the shot.

My worry about ME3 is that since ME2 distracted us with the collectors instead of the ACTUAL reaper threat, that they're going to have to pull a Deus ex Machina out of their butt to save us from the reapers in the end.

Yes, I know the collectors were pretty much created by the Reapers and they were making that new hybrid Reaper, but the whole thing, to me, seemed like such a distraction from the real threat.

ME2 was fun, but I agree with XXovercastXX and MarineGunrock, They took some of the best parts of ME1 and ripped them right out. the thermal clip system was dumb as hell. As MG said, the inventory needed fixing, not elimination.

I cant believe someone actually LIKED probe scanning. Yes driving the Mako around a lifeless planet was sometimes tedious, but it was also fun as hell sometimes too.

Archimedes of Syracuse was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer. The solar powered heat ray he is credited with inventing is thought by some to be a myth - but it may well have functioned based on the results of several experiments over the years.

Archimedes' heat ray was supposedly used in the Siege of Syracuse to focus sunlight onto approaching Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Some have theorised that highly polished shields may have been used to focus the sunlight, much in the same way modern solar thermal farms use parabolic collectors.

Parabolic mirrors were described and studied by one of Archimedes' contemporaries, mathematician Diocles in his work "On Burning Mirrors", so their existence and possible application was known in the same time period as the Siege of Syracuse.

Over the ensuing centuries, various parties have attempted to prove or disprove the existence of Archimedes' heat ray using materials Archimedes would have had available to him at the time - and also with more modern materials.

A test in the 1970's by Greek scientist Ioannis Sakkas using 70 mirrors measuring 1.5 metres by 1 metre set fire to a mock wooden ship at a distance of around 50 metres. In 2005, an experiment by students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology using 127 small mirror tiles at a distance of 30 metres from a wooden target resulted in a fire after 10 minutes of perfect conditions. A repeat of this experiment for the Myth Busters television series found Archimedes' solar powered "death ray" was unlikely to have performed as reported and that other weaponry available at the time with the ability to set fire to ships, such as catapults, would have been far more effective and likely used.

More recently, the authors of Green Power Science have demonstrated the solar powered death ray was indeed possible. Using just 27 ordinary flat mirrors of various sizes, they were also able to set fire to a model wooden ship. Under ideal conditions, the mast of the model caught fire in under a minute. They believe Archimedes could have had access to many parabolic mirrors made of highly polished metal that would have provided a more focused reflection than flat glass mirrors; and also the necessary manpower for a substantial manual "solar tracking" system to keep sunlight focused on the ships for long enough to set them ablaze.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1006