I present to you 30 minutes of must see video..
Enjoy
Enjoy
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The DVD comes out on April 7th. It's on my Netflix queue.
The official website didn't provide you with enough pertinent information?AussieReaper wrote:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0963807
geez you're lazy, give us the imdb link, mate
lazy.. bish I'm the epitome of what topic creation should be.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
make a puppet Hitler
start a war
sell war bonds
/president
start a war
sell war bonds
/president
Nope make Clinton President for life.
Whu ?Macbeth wrote:
Nope make Clinton President for life.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
k, now that I'm actually done:
It had shitty jaywalking pieces, it moved too slowly, had an excess of unnecessary graphics, and did not address solutions, but it was easier to choke down than Zeitgeist or various other shitty economics movies. I give it props for keeping the typical crap that people point to as the biggest problems in our system (pork, military spending, etc.) in perspective.
There is not a whole lot to agree or disagree with, as it is "informative" (read: did not have the balls to take a stance) than anything, except that the "deficit in leadership" thing was crap. There is a political problem yes, but it is intertwined with the problem as a whole not a single problem itself. I think it was a mistake to take that perspective on it as they did, because it views leadership as an independent problem that can be dealt with before, during, or after dealing with the other three "deficits". It has to be understood that leadership is both the root of the problem and paramount to the solution.
It had shitty jaywalking pieces, it moved too slowly, had an excess of unnecessary graphics, and did not address solutions, but it was easier to choke down than Zeitgeist or various other shitty economics movies. I give it props for keeping the typical crap that people point to as the biggest problems in our system (pork, military spending, etc.) in perspective.
There is not a whole lot to agree or disagree with, as it is "informative" (read: did not have the balls to take a stance) than anything, except that the "deficit in leadership" thing was crap. There is a political problem yes, but it is intertwined with the problem as a whole not a single problem itself. I think it was a mistake to take that perspective on it as they did, because it views leadership as an independent problem that can be dealt with before, during, or after dealing with the other three "deficits". It has to be understood that leadership is both the root of the problem and paramount to the solution.
I find it interesting that you find fault in something for not taking a stance, but then you criticize it when it does take a stance. No pleasing you, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, now that I'm actually done:
It had shitty jaywalking pieces, it moved too slowly, had an excess of unnecessary graphics, and did not address solutions, but it was easier to choke down than Zeitgeist or various other shitty economics movies. I give it props for keeping the typical crap that people point to as the biggest problems in our system (pork, military spending, etc.) in perspective.
There is not a whole lot to agree or disagree with, as it is "informative" (read: did not have the balls to take a stance) than anything, except that the "deficit in leadership" thing was crap. There is a political problem yes, but it is intertwined with the problem as a whole not a single problem itself. I think it was a mistake to take that perspective on it as they did, because it views leadership as an independent problem that can be dealt with before, during, or after dealing with the other three "deficits". It has to be understood that leadership is both the root of the problem and paramount to the solution.
Obama is leading by example.
Except few but government have money to spend, and theirs is printed, borrowed and unbacked.
We are well and truly jigered imo.
Except few but government have money to spend, and theirs is printed, borrowed and unbacked.
We are well and truly jigered imo.
I don't find fault in its stance in this particular instance, I find fault in how it presented one of the problems.Turquoise wrote:
I find it interesting that you find fault in something for not taking a stance, but then you criticize it when it does take a stance. No pleasing you, eh?
Instead of:
- Budget
- Savings
- Trade
- Leadership
They should have done:
Leadership
/ | \
Budget Savings Trade
What they outlined is generally good, but the relative importance and the cause/effect relationship implied is not the best.
But yeah, they should take a stance so I can be a critic.
Yea the jaywalking thing made me laugh.. pretty sure they were setups.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, now that I'm actually done:
It had shitty jaywalking pieces, it moved too slowly, had an excess of unnecessary graphics, and did not address solutions, but it was easier to choke down than Zeitgeist or various other shitty economics movies. I give it props for keeping the typical crap that people point to as the biggest problems in our system (pork, military spending, etc.) in perspective.
There is not a whole lot to agree or disagree with, as it is "informative" (read: did not have the balls to take a stance) than anything, except that the "deficit in leadership" thing was crap. There is a political problem yes, but it is intertwined with the problem as a whole not a single problem itself. I think it was a mistake to take that perspective on it as they did, because it views leadership as an independent problem that can be dealt with before, during, or after dealing with the other three "deficits". It has to be understood that leadership is both the root of the problem and paramount to the solution.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The private sector is filled with idiots. Those idiots elect fellow idiots to office, which would be fine, except they are elected on a platform of being not-idiots and having not-idiotic plans of what to do. I find the idiocy that is assumed less troublesome than the idiocy that is denied but just as evident.
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
.. truFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Madoff.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The private sector is filled with idiots. Those idiots elect fellow idiots to office, which would be fine, except they are elected on a platform of being not-idiots and having not-idiotic plans of what to do. I find the idiocy that is assumed less troublesome than the idiocy that is denied but just as evident.
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
There is a stunningly large gap between being greedy and stealing.ATG wrote:
Madoff.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The private sector is filled with idiots. Those idiots elect fellow idiots to office, which would be fine, except they are elected on a platform of being not-idiots and having not-idiotic plans of what to do. I find the idiocy that is assumed less troublesome than the idiocy that is denied but just as evident.
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
You mean the guy who is getting prosecuted? Maddoff times 100 goes untouched under the guise of serving the people.ATG wrote:
Madoff.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The private sector is filled with idiots. Those idiots elect fellow idiots to office, which would be fine, except they are elected on a platform of being not-idiots and having not-idiotic plans of what to do. I find the idiocy that is assumed less troublesome than the idiocy that is denied but just as evident.
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Corporations thought making SS was a good idea? Medicare?Turquoise wrote:
Well, considering the fact that a significant portion of Congress members become lobbyists after leaving office and that many of them are powerful players in the private sector before entering office.... I don't see much of a difference at this point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a money grubbing bastard is fine with me so long as you realize and acknowledge the fact, something the private sector does much better than the government.
FM '12
Corporations essentially run our government. Granted, the same could be said for basically any government.
The gap is made by your personal moral code. What society deems the punishment is irrelevant when trying to kill an argument that private greed is fine by giving a case of not private greed, but absent morals.Turquoise wrote:
A gap mostly created by the influence of the rich on legislation.
There's a reason why stealing a car lands you more jail time than embezzling thousands of dollars. This sort of thing goes all the way back to Hammurabi's Law.
Turq, watch the movie.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Whether Social Security is good or bad was not my point. You said that corporations run our government, yet a large, if not the largest, part of our financial problem was most certainly not designed by corporations.Turquoise wrote:
Social Security began as a good idea. It would still work today had politicians never stolen its funds for their pet projects.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Corporations thought making SS was a good idea? Medicare?Turquoise wrote:
Well, considering the fact that a significant portion of Congress members become lobbyists after leaving office and that many of them are powerful players in the private sector before entering office.... I don't see much of a difference at this point.
Corporations essentially run our government. Granted, the same could be said for basically any government.
Plenty of other countries have similar programs that do actually work and won't go bankrupt anytime soon. It's the sheer corruption of our system that has brought SS to the pathetic state it's currently in.
The reason why I support the end of SS isn't because I dislike the principle behind it but because I know that we can't expect our government to handle it correctly.
You drew that conclusion from what?Turquoise wrote:
So you're suggesting that embezzling is moral?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The gap is made by your personal moral code. What society deems the punishment is irrelevant when trying to kill an argument that private greed is fine by giving a case of not private greed, but absent morals.
You break the system for some time, until people realize they are reaping what they sow. It is not a fundamentally wrong error, it is an error of degree.Turquoise wrote:
The largest part of our financial problems isn't SS, it's speculation and leveraging.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Whether Social Security is good or bad was not my point. You said that corporations run our government, yet a large, if not the largest, part of our financial problem was most certainly not designed by corporations.
It all comes back to buying things on margin. If you go far enough in the direction of buying something with nothing, you eventually break the system.
Still, that was not the point. Corporations influence to some degree, but do not run government, and they certainly do not exempt government from taking responsibility.
How is engaging in reckless speculation embezzling?Turquoise wrote:
Being greedy can apply to many things. I was pointing out two examples that are clearly illegal. Yet, there are plenty of legal things you can do that satisfy greed, and while they may not be crimes, they have repercussions far worse than many crimes. One of them is engaging in reckless speculation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You drew that conclusion from what?Turquoise wrote:
So you're suggesting that embezzling is moral?
Isn't this where the law is supposed to pickup? It hasn't has it? Who makes the laws again?Turquoise wrote:
Being greedy can apply to many things. I was pointing out two examples that are clearly illegal. Yet, there are plenty of legal things you can do that satisfy greed, and while they may not be crimes, they have repercussions far worse than many crimes. One of them is engaging in reckless speculation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You say this as if there is absolutely no oversight.Turquoise wrote:
Politicians bought by corporations.Kmarion wrote:
Isn't this where the law is supposed to pickup? It hasn't has it? Who makes the laws again?Turquoise wrote:
Being greedy can apply to many things. I was pointing out two examples that are clearly illegal. Yet, there are plenty of legal things you can do that satisfy greed, and while they may not be crimes, they have repercussions far worse than many crimes. One of them is engaging in reckless speculation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Which brings us back full circle to why leadership is key to solving the other problems.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but the main issue now would seem to be that we aren't learning from our mistakes. The stock market crash resulted in people acting more cautiously afterwards. It took a while before another bubble was created. This most recent crash happened less than a decade after the dot com bubble.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You break the system for some time, until people realize they are reaping what they sow. It is not a fundamentally wrong error, it is an error of degree.
It's like everybody has ADD and a short memory now.
FM wrote:
Still, that was not the point. Corporations influence to some degree, but do not run government, and they certainly do not exempt government from taking responsibility.
Reckless speculation is only a danger to the individual engaging in it. The problem only occurs at large when others piggy back on it.Turquoise wrote:
That's not the conclusion I was drawing. Again, I was using embezzlement as an example of being greedy. You stated that it didn't apply to your argument because it's illegal. So then, I gave you an example of something legal that satisfies greed that is still very much a negative influence on society.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is engaging in reckless speculation embezzling?
A guy wants to gamble his life savings in Vegas. He is only hurting himself. Then other individuals bet on him betting. Then other individuals bet on those individuals, and yet more individuals bet on those individuals. Then when guy #1 goes down, the whole pyramid goes with him. It is not "society" that suffers, it is a series of individuals engaging in that gamble.
Society only suffers when leadership decides the gamblers are too big to fail.
I believe we are in the midst of being pissed off. I also worry that we will choke ourselves out too.Turquoise wrote:
Oversight exists to the extent that the public demands it. As long as people actually pay some attention to a problem, the government will somewhat act responsibly.Kmarion wrote:
You say this as if there is absolutely no oversight.Turquoise wrote:
Politicians bought by corporations.
You know... it goes back to that "freedom requires eternal vigilance" thing. It also applies to accountability.
So yeah, public pressure thankfully has somewhat of an effect on regulation. I hope people soon get pissed off enough that the government will actually regulate speculation more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz