They're just rocks, guys. Take a picture then bulldoze them to make way for something useful.

And here I was waiting for a giant bulldozer or something.

He just isn't educated enough on history to understand what he's talking about. He's very intelligent and he makes very good arguments, but he relates all those arguments to his experiences working around Law Enforcement and what hog ties them.

Now if he saw Law Enforcement wiping out and destroying city blocks or paying gunman to drag women out of houses and murder and rape children than maybe he'd have a different idea of what this NSA thing means.

The fact is that he hasn't seen jack shit, because he hasn't stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer, he hasn't looked into a mass grave in East Timor. He's just not informed.

Don't tell me you're still using a bulldozer? Get with the now! *L to forehead*

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.

The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden. Today, the national debt is so large and short term that interest rates can't go up without causing unpayable interest. Without healthy interest rates, there are no savings. Without savings, there is no real investment to upgrade those shovels to bulldozers. And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.

That being said, Romney isn't the solution. This guy is just like GWB, will say anything to get into office. The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored. Raising taxes on anyone doesn't come close to stopping the coming currency collapse. You guys are doing the economic equivalent of playing with your dicks. And it's going to become painfully obvious in the next 10 years regardless of which one of these clowns you elect.

That's a front-end loader, not a bulldozer. I know my constructacons.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Alright, what have we learned today kids?
China is a fucked up country.

>> ^Yogi:

If you wanna go offroad you get the defender, the BMW 5 is just sad.


Most people who own cayennes wouldn't know off road it bit them in the ass. What they want is a big, powerful, luxury family car. I picked a 5 series as an example, but you could have a merc or whatever else fits in that category.

Either way, the point is that cayenne is an expensive "worst of all worlds" car.
A 5 series is a better sedan, almost anything is a better offroader (I'd actually go for a Hilux over a defender) and there are plenty of cheap nippy roadsters that will handle infinitely better.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
God the Cayenne's an ugly son of a bitch. The people that drive them obviously have more money than taste.

Yep, ugly ass car that is mediocre at everything. I once worked out that for the price of a top of the range cayenne, you could buy a decent spec BMW 5 series and a land rover defender. Hell you'd nearly have enough left over for an Ariel Atom. All of which kick the Cayennes ass.


If you wanna go offroad you get the defender, the BMW 5 is just sad.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

God the Cayenne's an ugly son of a bitch. The people that drive them obviously have more money than taste.


Yep, ugly ass car that is mediocre at everything. I once worked out that for the price of a top of the range cayenne, you could buy a decent spec BMW 5 series and a land rover defender. Hell you'd nearly have enough left over for an Ariel Atom. All of which kick the Cayennes ass.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Alright, what have we learned today kids?


If you're going to do something stupid, do it on camera!

>> ^KnivesOut:

Alright, what have we learned today kids?


If you have money you get to do whatever you want.

I wake up, drive ten kilometers to a shop.

Generally get into one of two trucks that tow either a directional drill, or a trailer with a gas line reel and a mini-excavator.

Sometimes I drive a small bulldozer to tow a bigger gas line trencher. Sometimes I operate the Excavator(s) and I operate the directional drill whenever we do a job that requires it.

I generally enjoy my day.

All these operators are competitive like that. Some dude I worked a few years ago bragged how he could grade 1/32" off a road with his bulldozer if necessary. Never believed him but maybe it was true now.

Profit means you are utilizing resources effectively. The opposite is net destruction. If everyone consumed more than they produced, we would eventually have nothing. Henry Ford accumulated a lot of personal wealth for his innovations, but everyone he traded with got a car and his employees were better paid than unions. You can pay a guy with a bulldozer a lot more than a guy with a shovel and savings and investment is what makes that upgrade possible. No business can force you to trade your production for theirs, only the government with taxes can do that. If the government didn't have the power to dole out special favors to business, would business bother bribing them? Lobbying is the symptom, the problem is in excess government power.

The thing that socialists don't understand is that the wealth creation is what's important, not concentration. In capitalism, 1 guy could have 7 yachts and a moon base, but if the average person has two cars, two kids, a home, and countless amenities, who cares? Without the profit motive, who would go through the trouble of inventing and selling anything en masse if your greatest reward is no better than someone on the assembly line who took no risk? If everyone equally has very little as the soviets did, how is that better?

But you know, socialists act like all megarich people do is spend their money on frivolous things. In reality, they have too much to do that. It gets invested in upstart companies who need the capital to express their ideas and by the end, most is usually given to charity. In other words, it gets recycled back into wealth creation whereas the government would just waste it on bombs and embassies.

Oh, and to the guy who said the FDA is there to help you from business, look up stevia and aspartame. Your naive belief that giving others the power to choose for you is a complete backfire that accomplishes the opposite. The FDA is bribed shitless into using their "protective ban" powers to ban, harass, or steal from perfectly safe competitors on behalf of their corporate cronies. Also look up all the instances where a company was sued for supplying dangerous or defective products. That's not the FDA, that's libertarian-approved courts and recourse dissuading fraud and abuse in the marketplace. It's not more profitable to take shortcuts, it's less profitable because you'll be sued into oblivion. Do some businesses die because their owners are too stupid to see that? Yes. But business mortality is good, we don't want destructive businesses surviving like a horrid government program can.