[Rancid]

I just learned that Bill Gates SOUNDS like a dork

He's pretty much a computer nerd.

It's funny, that you dislike him on that grounds that he sounds like a dork though.

It shows your hypocrisy...

[Pleb]

I read somewhere that he is a promoter of violent videogames for the sake of violence in videogames and for that I voted no.

This is why you should vote Hillary and why others shouldn't

[Potemkin]

Note: Wow, I just learned that Bill Gates SOUNDS like a dork . . . for that I actually dislike him now.

Bill Gates is indeed the Prince of Dorkness. But you're an even bigger dork for disliking him for that reason alone. There are lots of other, legitimate reasons to dislike His Supreme Dorkness.

[Zyx]

It shows your hypocrisy...

Naa, I was just teasing, but what hypocrisy?

I was just surprised to hear him sounding so dorkish and pathetically embarassed . . . Western media tricks us into thinking that these people fit the hero stereotype and then there comes Bill.

My Physics Professor was supposedly a childhood friend of Bill's that declined a Microsoft position because of XYZ.

Anyway, what hypocrisy would my remark show?

This is why you should vote Hillary and why others shouldn't

(Your Remark Went)/(My head)

You remark went over my head; what in the world does this mean?

But you're an even bigger dork for disliking him for that reason alone.

I just wanted to point out . . .

*Logs onto Halo and plays for hours*

Note: I do not play Halo . . . I'm not that hypocritical!

[Pleb]

I don't know if it means anything. I'm just drawing a link between your dislike of violent computer games and your presidential preferences. Hillary is an anti computer game knee jerker too.

[Zyx]

Oh, I just like her because she is hawt.

*Hypocrisy foams from Kumatto's mouth*

[Lone Gunman]

The Gates Foundation has given billions to AIDS research, if Gates' money was distributed amongst more people chances are it wouldn't be donated in such large quantities every year to charity.

Gates has made his money fair and square and he doesn't abuse his wealth. I mean I can't even think of a time when Gates has tried to buy people's opinions or tried to meddle with politics etc. There are celebrities with only a fraction of the amount of wealth Gates has who are about 100x as vocal.

Lone Gunman

[soron]

Other - it's his money, if he managed to earn that much - good for him. His money does give him the means to do things that affect other people's lifes. But if he pisses of a lot of them, all the money won't save him from the backlash.

[sploop!]

It always makes me laugh when the free-market people whinge on about government power, then get all lovey-dovey when it comes to one individual getting rich to the point of stupidity. Who cares that he gives it to charity? He gets to choose who lives, and who dies, because he happens to have the money? WTF?

He isn't actually evil, but he symbolises a terrible evil - 56 Billion dollars in his pockets, whilst half the world lives on less than $2 a day. What a rotten bastard. I hope he falls down the stairs and breaks his dick.

I went for the sharing option...

[Athanas]

I have no idea why 56 billion dollars should even be considered fulfillment of the American dream. Instead it demonstrates the gross discrepancy between the wealthy and poor and ultimately the greatest weakness of rampant unchecked capitalism.

What does one man or family have use for 56 billion? Is not 1 billion sufficient to live luxuriously?

Inequal taxation is definitely not the answer but neither is sitting back and praising the ludicruous hoarding of wealth in the hands of so few people. I dont understand how many times I have to emphasize that there can be a medium between total redistribution of assets and permitting most of the nations wealth in the top 5%.

Instead many would uphold an economic system above the lives of the poor and continue to praise its instabilities as testimony to its success. At the very least acknowledge that no single person deserves this much wealth and that such a person can continue living in luxury with a fraction of his wealth.

[Goranhammer]

I have no idea why 56 billion dollars should even be considered fulfillment of the American dream. Instead it demonstrates the gross discrepancy between the wealthy and poor and ultimately the greatest weakness of rampant unchecked capitalism.

No, it shows the "gross discrepancy" between producers and consumers. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a damn thing from Microsoft. Gates and his corporation provides a product, and another wants it. Whether or not he's worth tens of billions is irrelevant. He acquires wealth legally and the "poor" spend it legally. Who are you to dictate interference in bilateral agreements?

What does one man or family have use for 56 billion? Is not 1 billion sufficient to live luxuriously?

That's not the point. Him having 56 billion does not impede your wealth potential.

Instead many would uphold an economic system above the lives of the poor and continue to praise its instabilities as testimony to its success.

Sure would, because changes to the economic system, in the long run, have a much higher chance of hurting them than helping them.

At the very least acknowledge that no single person deserves this much wealth and that such a person can continue living in luxury with a fraction of his wealth.

Fortunately the free market trumps your perceived morality. Thank God we can't oppress people with your views on the world.

If these little fucking socialists and communists worried about their own financial well-being than other people's, they'd be a whole lot better off.

[sploop!]

Sure would, because changes to the economic system, in the long run, have a much higher chance of hurting them than helping them.

Arrant nonsense. The right changes to the economic system would do them some major good. The current system robs the poor blind. That's why they're called 'The Poor'.

[NoRapture]

People who constantly use the term, "...throwing money at..." as in squeeze your dime until it liquefies in your hand, are idiots. Nobody wants to throw money at anything. Nobody does throw money at anything. Public schools, health care programs, social welfare, government scholarships, roads, law enforcement, civic needs, etc. are approached through government to try and enhance the lives of the society it serves. Ignoring the fact that the most tax money, by far, granted any constituency of society is awarded on a welfare basis in the billions of dollars to private, corporate enterprise. Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)

[sploop!]

Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)

QFT. Amen...

[Rancid]

People who constantly use the term, "...throwing money at..." as in squeeze your dime until it liquefies in your hand, are idiots. Nobody wants to throw money at anything. Nobody does throw money at anything. Public schools, health care programs, social welfare, government scholarships, roads, law enforcement, civic needs, etc. are approached through government to try and enhance the lives of the society it serves. Ignoring the fact that the most tax money, by far, granted any constituency of society is awarded on a welfare basis in the billions of dollars to private, corporate enterprise. Throwing money, over and above exonerating their taxes, at G.M., Monsanto, G.E., American Airlines, over, and over, and over again never warrants a complaint. Only when the coins somehow fall into the hands of a child in a poor public school or hospital does "throwing money at" become an unforgivable sin. (puke)

i agree with the corporate thing, however giving schools and health care more money is throwing it away. The only way it won't be throwing it away is if you have accountability in the system. There is never accountability within government because they have no incentive to do well. They will get their money one way or another. Usually, they end up increasing taxes after money has been squandered away. Then they feed you with the bullshit line of "it's only a 1% increase, you can afford." People like you, lap it up like it's shit on a silver platter.

As I've said before, in Europe less money is spent per student, yet our students are way dumber than European students. You're telling me we really need more money in education. School systems do throw away money. What we need is some serious reform in the form of adding serious accountability in the system.

but Noooooooo! people like yourself resort to rhetoric like "if you don't give schools money, then you don't care about kids" as opposed to really looking at what's wrong with the system. Your type is too proud to admit it, your system is broken, and it needs fixing, not money.

[Athanas]

Goranhammer it would be wise of you to pay attention to all of the contributions of the thread, I already mentioned the deliberate manipulations and exploitations of Microsoft under the embrace, extend and extinguish strategy. Like I said before if somebody wants a certain franchise game like Halo they are forced to buy it from Microsoft because 3rd party developers like Bungie were bought out in the intention of controlling the market through popular choice limitations.

The free market issue is not so much about morality as accountability. Many of the 'legal' principles and guidelines underplace in the market are not just and therefore can be perceived as corrupt.

Also your idea that people should only worry about their gross wealth in comparison to others is akin to the employer who insists that employees not discuss wages. In both cases it is justification of greed and exploitation under the pretense of law.

[Zyx]

I mean I can't even think of a time when Gates has tried to buy people's opinions or tried to meddle with politics etc.

This actually may be a problem; I would not mind a class-conscious proletariat sympathizing billionaire; one who simply exploits and hoards is not one that I can truly approve of though . . . especially when it exploits, hoards, and deludes the proles into viewing him as powerless even though he promotes violence, racism [Halo has Terrans fighting Aliens] and whatever else one can read in his line of products approved by him.

[Rancid]

Like I said before if somebody wants a certain franchise game like Halo they are forced to buy it from Microsoft because 3rd party developers like Bungie were bought out in the intention of controlling the market through popular choice limitations.

This has been done since the beginning of the video game industry though. Microsoft isn't the only party guilty of it. Nintendo, and Sony have done the same shit in the past. In fact, Nintendo did much worse back in the super Nintendo days. I'm not justifying any of their practices. I'm just pointing out that it isn't just big bad microsoft

[Zyx]

This has been done since the beginning of the video game industry though. Microsoft isn't the only party guilty of it. Nintendo, and Sony have done the same shit in the past.

RancidWannaRiot, try to understand Athanas before responding to it . . . the failure of many pofoites is their will towards not understanding others.

How in the world does your response address Athanas' comment? What is the point of responding to it if you will not even understand it?

Athanas had mentioned on how Microsoft IS forcing others to purchase its games in response to Goranhammer's 'it is not forcing others to purchase its games' and so my question is how does 'so does Sony and Nintendo' or 'that's business practices' work against Athanas or even build upon it?

Honestly RancidWannaRiot, I was ashamed to read this from you.

You should maybe have justified how that was not 'forcing people' although very clearly the argument is that for those who would want to purchase from Bungie they were forced to purchase macroscopically from Microsoft; I would say that this is 'forceful,' no? Why not?

** To wit, my family has a loyalty (or had) towards Final Fantasy and in order to play a FF game they will need to purchase a playstation, just as if they would want to play a MGS, or they would need a Wii for the latest Zelda or Smash brothers yadda yadda. The point is that there is some merit to being 'forced' to purchase something because of their monopolistic tactics. Yes, one can say that others have the same practices but again, one cannot argue that it is not monopolistic tactics. Right?

[Rancid]

RancidWannaRiot, try to understand Athanas before responding to it . . . the failure of many pofoites is their will towards not understanding others.

How in the world does your response address Athanas' comment? What is the point of responding to it if you will not even understand it?

Athanas had mentioned on how Microsoft IS forcing others to purchase its games in response to Goranhammer's 'it is not forcing others to purchase its games' and so my question is how does 'so does Sony and Nintendo' or 'that's business practices' work against Athanas or even build upon it?

Honestly RancidWannaRiot, I was ashamed to read this from you.

You should maybe have justified how that was not 'forcing people' although very clearly the argument is that for those who would want to purchase from Bungie they were forced to purchase macroscopically from Microsoft; I would say that this is 'forceful,' no? Why not?

** To wit, my family has a loyalty (or had) towards Final Fantasy and in order to play a FF game they will need to purchase a playstation, just as if they would want to play a MGS, or they would need a Wii for the latest Zelda or Smash brothers yadda yadda. The point is that there is some merit to being 'forced' to purchase something because of their monopolistic tactics. Yes, one can say that others have the same practices but again, one cannot argue that it is not monopolistic tactics. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo

This wiki entry is actually incomplete, they got into a lot of anti-trust trouble during the SNES days in the 90's in the US as well.

By the end of the 1980s the courts found Nintendo guilty of anti-trust activities because it had abused its relationship with third-party developers and created a monopoly in the gaming industry by not allowing developers to make games for any other platforms[citation needed]. They changed this rule during the Super NES era, allowing Sega to start a massive console war against Nintendo with the Sega Genesis and Game Gear. This would occur once more in 1996, when Sony released the PlayStation.

During the same year, Nintendo's aggressive business tactics in Europe would catch up to them. The European Commission determined that Nintendo had engaged in anticompetitive price-fixing business practices dating at least as far back as the early 90s. This resulted in a heavy fine being laid against the company- €18 million, one of the largest antitrust fines applied in the history of the commission.[2]

That's all i was trying to point out. All these large companies get into anti-trust problems.

EA is also getting into Anti-trust problems as well. I"m not talking about companies striking deals to have exclusive games like MGS, or sonic.