Just let it all fall apart until January.

The essence of government is trying to scrub things clean using turds as sponges.

Scrubs up nicely, don't he?

"The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall. }

Naturally (no pun intended), I disagree with you on this assessment. A civilized society is far more resilient and able to recover from all types of disasters (man-made and natural) than a nomadic civilization has ever been at any time in history. Do you have any idea of the kind of destructive effort it would take to completely wipe out the power grid, uproot every road that has been paved, root out the entire plumbing network buried underground? The only point that I agree with you on is the far larger dependence upon food that massive (and they are truly massive compared to hunter-gatherers) civilizations have. But as I pointed out in my first post food is now a global industry, so again you are limited to world ending catastrophes when it comes finding enough firepower to bring down modern civilizations.

"As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbor's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences."

Personally, I think that literal direction freedom is a paltry definition of what true freedom really is. I will gladly take the paved road and all those "restrictions" for all the benefits that I get from having that taken space actively and productively contributing to the advancement and well-being of humanity. I will drive around a massive hospital that's blocking me from going "as the crow flies" quicker than a crow can fly.

Every inch of space that is denied to me is in some way indirectly or directly contributing. Can you say that a plain of scrubs and rocks is providing the same amount of benefits to nomads as they walk in whatever direction they want over it? What about cumulatively?

"If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters..."

Let me ask you a question then, why did you walk 10,000km in any direction? What was your goal? Did you need food, water, because you could? What tangible benefit have you derived from the endeavor you just undertook?

If you are so "truly" free why can't you walk to the Moon?

>> ^enoch:

this is pure fear-mongering and nothing more.
be afraid of the brown people and while we do that lets ignore the massive amounts of information giving context to the current situation and lets instead focus on the things that will instill fear.
gingrich is part of the problem.
perpetuating a false dichotomy based on misinformation and hyperbolic language which is meant solely to incite fear and offers absolutely nothing in the form of a resolution or even a modicum of contextual understanding.
gingrish is a consumate politician who pounds the fear drum like a pro.
fuck that opportunistic whore.
he would sell your grandmothers dentures if he thought it would further his relevancy.


You forgot to mention that the National Press Club is a group of persons organized for a political purpose-to hell with those reporting, taping, editing, and broadcasting this treasonous dribble. Create the terrorists then demand action against them??
Americans created this monster through complacency, self-indulgence, and submission to faulty programming. Anyone with an opinion other than that have been bamboozled into thinking there is any other form of terrorism than domestic (by the way, even more so under the current administration), needs their heads scrubbed.

Hey that's the girl ted falls for from scrubs

Kate Micucci was on Scrubs. She was The Gooch! She ended up with Ned (???) This song was on too.

When Ronald Reagan "inherited" the mess that spineless anti-Semite socialist neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie James Carter left behind, America was nearly lost. In two years, Reagan's policies turned the country around and the 1980s were one of the most vibrant economic periods in US history. And all Reagan did was unleash the dynamic will of the American people, lowering taxes so people could keep more of what they earned. Government isn't the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.

In two years obamarx could have turned America away from the European model, nations going bankrupt one after the other because socialism always flops in the long run, human nature being what it is.

Instead The One is attempting to put America on the same path tried for 80 years in the soviet union. Government central planning is a total failure and communism is responsible for 100 million deaths around the globe.

Doesn't matter if you give obamarx 4 years (likely!) or 40, his policies have about as much effectiveness as trying to scrub a shadow off a sidewalk.

Blaming Bush changes nothing HERE and NOW. Government cannot tax or spend us into prosperity.

November 2nd, 2010 we'll see who's awake.



>> ^Marzden:

Bush had 8 years to fuck everything up big time and you expect obama whose only been in office for 2 to get it all right immediately? Wake the fuck up this aint a computer game, fixing the shit that bush left behind is going to take years.

The only fail here is a failure in BansheeX's sarcasm detector. It's really sad that you cannot tell I was being facetious. You're wasting your time.

Oh and even in jest I didn't say TPers and Libertarians were the same thing. Get your eyes checked (maybe your brain as well while you're at it).

>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?

There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.
Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.
Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:
If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.
Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, the inevitable happened.
Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of FDIC. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?


There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.

Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.

Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:

If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.

Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, rampant speculation ensued.

Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of both FDIC and interest rate price fixing. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.

C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?

anyone else unable to scrub?

God this show... It's great and always makes me feel better about my own place (which is best described as clean and tidy to the naked eye, but don't look too close), but it was on all the time at one point, after The Simpsons or something, so I ended up watching it daily. One morning I got up and had this overwhelming paranoia about germs. I've never cared about germs for fucks sake! So I start scrubbing my kitchen tiles, underneath the fridge and all the nooks and crannies, like a woman possessed. This was before the kids had even woken up. Pffffft

Anyway, *promote cos I love Spring!

Green Wing is much like Scrubs. Its in a hospital, and it isn't funny.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
But really, I'd love to see an RPG where a max-level veteran is statistically only 3-5 times stronger than a completely fresh noob. But realistically, I know that the only way that system can work is in an open-world sandbox style game, and those seem to be rapidly falling out of favor. A pity, at least to my tastes.


It's interesting that this sort of progression seems to be part of every genre *but* RPGs. In Zelda 2, for instance, you can only double your health and magic. You grow a bit more powerful as the game continues, but you can still be killed by scrubs if you're not careful.

I don't know if you're into tabletop role playing games, but Legend of the Five Rings exhibits this sort of growth. Even combat masters are only statistically two or three times more hardy than a commoner, though they have special techniques they've trained over their lifetime. Even so, a group of five or six starting characters could cut them down in most cases. It's interesting to look at and fun to play, but as it's a tabletop RPG, it does fall into the category of open world.

Press play, scrub to 2:21, pause, <insert reaction>, close window.