There are several tags made on top of the original Robbo's piece. That didn't cause such a fuss, so why would it be a problem when someone famous does it?

Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb and propose a theory. Perhaps maybe Robbo did meet some person who claimed themselves to be Banksy, and maybe he did slap that kid. And maybe just perhaps Robbo is a very naive person and believes anybody to be exactly what they claim to be.

And just maybe that banksy he has met, was not the real banksy, and maybe Robbo doesn't really want to fact check, maybe because he probably has been out of the street graffiti loop for so long that he doesn't know who to contact to find out for sure.

So maybe him and his friends, who are all out of the loop, is just sticking with robbo's side of the story without fact checking, and maybe is creating this whole hype over some sort of graffiti war.

Just to top it all off, maybe the issued painting under the bridge was painted over long before all this hype (as the photos suggest of its last condition of Robbo's work, which was graffitied over by many other random tags), and it's being made an issue only after the alleged claim from King Robbo.

It is just a maybe though, just maybe.

The problem is that both Banksy and King Robbo operate under anonymity, which leaves a lot of things unorganized and unruly. Anybody can start claiming to be them without any kind of proof as long as they can mimic the original artist's style well, and nobody could tell the difference or know who exactly did what. Even for 'Team Robbo', this is just a collective mass, and anybody can start claiming themselves to be Team Robbo, and start putting up work under its name. So why can't this be the scenario for Banksy's work as well? Seeing there are lot of imitators out there.

I mean this is England, lot of dumb wankers out there. These are the same young people who just recently trashed their own neighborhoods because they were bored and riots felt exciting. You can see the immaturity of these gang's minds by calling Banksy a 'la rat'. It's a negative connotation because it's French, and French is bad because French are pussies, etc etc, that sort of typical immature insult which all English hooligans and lower classmen love to use. And to think, Robbo must be in his 30s, and yet he's still caught in this mess. He allowed himself to be caught in this silly feud that's been created by young teenagers of London. Jeez.

Honestly I think you stand a much larger risk of getting killed if you resist. These crooks want to take money and leave without too much fuss, they don't want to start killing people and have police chasing them around the country for murder. You pull out a firearm and start firing all over the shop (lolpun) they panic just as much as you, only they might be a better shot. Honestly the do not escalate policy is meant to protect employees at the expense of the company, after all its their shit that gets stolen.

Whether or not to fire him comes to a question of training imo. If he was made properly aware of their policy and why it exists and he still disobeyed it then I think he deseves to lose his job. If not then I think its unfair to penalise him. Why fire him? Well because not only did he endanger his own life by acting rashly, he also endangered his fellow employees and any members of the public that were nearby.

As for hijacking...come on. Way to string up a straw man there. Terrorism is SO similar to some crims trying line their pockets. Be real.

>> ^bareboards2:

This is won me over after a shaky start.
Hope the Dread Red P disappears soon!


Cheers, I'm not too fussed though.

All I ever get out of these debates is that one side is fighting to pollute and destroy in the name of profit. It's their right to do so, says god and liberty, and capitalism, etc.

Anybody who disagrees is a big government, nanny state, socialist hippy, tree hugging devil worshipper.
I think if Jesus came back and made a fuss about murdering off chunks of the natural world for cash, he'd be disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

Alarmist? Socialist? Communist? Intellectual? Elite? Community organizer? Professor at a podium?

Sharing is bad, and smart people are evil, and this planet is disposable, amen.

this guy twists the words of christ to the breaking point and then makes a fuss when they make no sense.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.

Give me a break.

You said "None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money".

If you don't have 40 bucks to get an ID, which every one needs, then you have bigger problems and voting is not one of them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the ne
restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.


None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.
I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.
There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?
This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

>> ^bobknight33:

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.
If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.



None of those are particularly easy to get, and they also cost money. Military ID kinda obviously only comes with being in the military.

I guess mostly the question is "why should you have to show ID?" we already make people register, and you get crossed off in the the roles when you come in to vote.

There's essentially no one who's ever successfully voted twice in the last decade, so why tighten restrictions on voting, except to make it harder for people who don't already have a form of ID to exercise their right to vote?

This is sort've like saying you shouldn't get a right to a fair trial unless you register and go through the requisite hoops to get a driver's license.

I did watch you need a driver license, passport or or mil ID. Any one can get these if they dont already have one.

If this is such a not problem then what the fuss about showing an ID? How does it prevent one from voting?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?

Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.
Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.
It's voter suppression.

Yeah, I don't know what the big fuss is all about. Guns make everybody safer, right? I mean, I think the evidence is in and it's that America is safer than those other pussy countries, right? Right?

Like the woman who shot at a dog and killed her husband - safer!

http://www.news.com.au/world/american-woman-better-walker-shot-at-dog-but-kills-husband-police-say/story-e6frfkyi-1226096115154

>> ^peggedbea:

i definitely want something faster to access than a laptop, ill get phone calls from people who want appointments while im shopping for groceries or picking my kids up from camp, i want to be able to open the calendar app quickly and book an appointment. also when im checking clients out at my wellness center and i have to wait for 3 other people who work out of there to check out their clients before i can use the comp to check my client out and see my schedule to book their next appointment.... and i see a laptop being too bulky to set on a dresser and play ambient music during sessions.
and gaahhh the ridiculousness of CD's that get lost, or scratched or borrowed (i don't mind sharing, it's just that they always seem to return scratched)... so sure i could get an ipod, but id rather just buy one gadget to take care of everything...
also, sometimes at night when i'm closing up or batching out or whatever i like to sit in the floor and figure out what stock i have/need, how much money i have/owe/made that day, what percentage of it i want to reinvest and what new equipment i'd like to get when its time... instead of doing that with tons of tiny pieces of paper and my shitty memory to rely on, i think a tablet in my lap with my bank accounts and quick books and schedule and the websites of my suppliers on it would minimize my time at work.
im so ridiculously right brained i have to work super hard to stay organized and on top of my business so i don't revert to my ways of winging it on the fly and crash my business into the ground or get so stressed out by all the psychic clutter that i burn it all down catharticly
also, how reliable is it in terms of memory? am i going to overload it making it play music and book appointments all day? is it going to crash in the middle of my last session and force me to pull out the 1990's technology?
>> ^dag:
Laptops are just so damn cheap these days, it's true - and generally a lot more functionality than a tablet.
The benefit of a tablet over a laptop for me are two things:
1. Form factor - I can take it to bed and read it like a book, whip it out on the bus - or in economy class seats on a plane - with a lot less fuss than a laptop.
2. Quickness - I don't mean processor speed, I mean just getting to a bit of functionality that I need at that moment. If I want to open a calendar app on a laptop, I need to open up the laptop, wait for it to unhibernate- hunt for the app and then wait for it to launch. About a minute to do that. Versus about 10 seconds on tablet.



A big part of this for you is how the thing feels in your hand and how it handles in the scenarios you envisage. The operating system is quite solid I'm led to believe. It should be very reliable.

But I'm not sure how well joined up it will be if you're trying to run an entire business of it where you need data from one app to cross over to another. This strikes me as fundamentally basic and obviously straightforward on a personal computer but you'll need an actual living, breathing ipad owner to confirm this is possible.

i definitely want something faster to access than a laptop, ill get phone calls from people who want appointments while im shopping for groceries or picking my kids up from camp, i want to be able to open the calendar app quickly and book an appointment. also when im checking clients out at my wellness center and i have to wait for 3 other people who work out of there to check out their clients before i can use the comp to check my client out and see my schedule to book their next appointment.... and i see a laptop being too bulky to set on a dresser and play ambient music during sessions.

and gaahhh the ridiculousness of CD's that get lost, or scratched or borrowed (i don't mind sharing, it's just that they always seem to return scratched)... so sure i could get an ipod, but id rather just buy one gadget to take care of everything...

also, sometimes at night when i'm closing up or batching out or whatever i like to sit in the floor and figure out what stock i have/need, how much money i have/owe/made that day, what percentage of it i want to reinvest and what new equipment i'd like to get when its time... instead of doing that with tons of tiny pieces of paper and my shitty memory to rely on, i think a tablet in my lap with my bank accounts and quick books and schedule and the websites of my suppliers on it would minimize my time at work.

im so ridiculously right brained i have to work super hard to stay organized and on top of my business so i don't revert to my ways of winging it on the fly and crash my business into the ground or get so stressed out by all the psychic clutter that i burn it all down catharticly

also, how reliable is it in terms of memory? am i going to overload it making it play music and book appointments all day? is it going to crash in the middle of my last session and force me to pull out the 1990's technology?
>> ^dag:

Laptops are just so damn cheap these days, it's true - and generally a lot more functionality than a tablet.
The benefit of a tablet over a laptop for me are two things:
1. Form factor - I can take it to bed and read it like a book, whip it out on the bus - or in economy class seats on a plane - with a lot less fuss than a laptop.
2. Quickness - I don't mean processor speed, I mean just getting to a bit of functionality that I need at that moment. If I want to open a calendar app on a laptop, I need to open up the laptop, wait for it to unhibernate- hunt for the app and then wait for it to launch. About a minute to do that. Versus about 10 seconds on tablet.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Laptops are just so damn cheap these days, it's true - and generally a lot more functionality than a tablet.

The benefit of a tablet over a laptop for me are two things:

1. Form factor - I can take it to bed and read it like a book, whip it out on the bus - or in economy class seats on a plane - with a lot less fuss than a laptop.

2. Quickness - I don't mean processor speed, I mean just getting to a bit of functionality that I need at that moment. If I want to open a calendar app on a laptop, I need to open up the laptop, wait for it to unhibernate- hunt for the app and then wait for it to launch. About a minute to do that. Versus about 10 seconds on tablet.

>> ^kceaton1:

I've always wondered, would this work if the parking break is on? Or would it just destroy the parking break? Anyone know?


You can drive with your parking park on without to much fuss. It ain't great for it, but it won't explode into a thousand bits. For cases like this, the parking break is actually less strong than a automatic in park; the brake is just friction, the other is a hydraulic stop. The paint might suffer, even in the best case. It doesn't take but a few pounds of pressure to leave an imprint or scuff.

>> ^NetRunner:

Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.
Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.
Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.
But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".
At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!
Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?
I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"
Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...


We just have a different take on it.

When I said "silly argument", I didn't mean that you were silly or that you didn't get it, I meant that I felt the argument was silly because I agree with almost everything that you're saying here. I'm not trying to get in your face. I guess I'm just a little cynical lately because I feel that the "problem" begins and ends with the consumer. There is a lot of corporate crap in the middle of that shit sandwich, but in the end it's the consumers eating it. They are the ones choosing to increase ratings and they are the ones who refuse to stop watching. I'm not trying to tell you not to make a fuss about anything. I'm just telling you how I see things.

I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Try not to read that as "you are incapable of understanding", because that isn't what I'm saying.

I don't think you can "change the minds of consumers". I think most people just don't care. And yes, most of them are just oblivious. I randomly asked someone today (a statistical analyst) "Who is the Secretary of State" and their answer was "Rumsfeld". I also think that most people prefer to have "news" reflected back to them that confirms their views.

Forget it, I don't want to rehash my opinion . I just want you to know that I'm not saying "yes it does" have to be this way. "Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices." For me, that sums it up, in your own words.

Like I said, I'm not trying to win anything here, not trying to sway you or get in your face .. just telling you what I think and I apologize if you think I was getting in your face. I honestly believe we agree 99% of the way here .. but for me the balance of culpability leans towards the consumers not the broadcasters. In other words, I place more hope in people than I do corporations, and although I'm universally disappointed by both, more so by the people.

I'm sorry you took offense to what I had to say here. I never wanted that. I'm not trying to shout you down or tell you you don't understand reality, I'm telling you my opinion of how I perceive the reality of the situation. That's all. I'm going to just drop it because like I said, it's silly to argue with someone that I basically agree with.