Am about to watch episode 3 now. Thus far, I would say its a very nice serie and and it should be an eye opener to many people. The first episode is about the cheating of WW, and other car manifactorer. It also shead some light on how very powerless EU countries are at confronting these scheems. One point to USA for discovering this shenanigans. Next episode is about pay day loans - no spoiler here. Go watch it yourself Am about to watch episode 3, about medical industry - Watch it yourself. and lets have a debate
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
If lejend began boycotting all businesses due to disagreeing political stances (probably on net neutrality alone) he'd be living basically off the grid. Maybe he'll have an operating cell phone, and Chick-Fil-A.
Suppose this: a company must read all of lejend's posts and decide whether to endorse this customer or no, what will they choose?
here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
There is an interesting sentiment on net neutrality: in which we, the consumer, are providing a very valuable resource (information) for free, to the near unlimited gain of corporations. But the now new net neutrality system aids the consumer how...?
From Jaron Lanier, the "father of VR," and rather visionary genius: "'I don't think breaking up the companies fixes it,' Lanier said. 'I don't think regulation can really fix it. I think we have to change the financial incentives. The companies actually have to charge for their services, but even more important, people who contribute a lot of value to social networks have to have a chance to earn money back from it..... we have to create a real digital economy, instead of a fake one.'"
Obviously that'll never happen, and the best-case scenario for the consumer would be to continue using the internet for free. It's still a pretty damn good deal for internet corporatism; they're just getting greedy at this point. Lanier's next option, if creating a "digital economy" of "micro transactions" fails is to create a totally "socialist network" which he admits will also never happen.
Admittedly I will have to read more into this and his stance on this.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
deleted_user wrote:There is an interesting sentiment on net neutrality: in which we, the consumer, are providing a very valuable resource (information) for free, to the near unlimited gain of corporations. But the now new net neutrality system aids the consumer how...?
From Jaron Lanier, the "father of VR," and rather visionary genius: "'I don't think breaking up the companies fixes it,' Lanier said. 'I don't think regulation can really fix it. I think we have to change the financial incentives. The companies actually have to charge for their services, but even more important, people who contribute a lot of value to social networks have to have a chance to earn money back from it..... we have to create a real digital economy, instead of a fake one.'"
Obviously that'll never happen, and the best-case scenario for the consumer would be to continue using the internet for free. It's still a pretty damn good deal for internet corporatism; they're just getting greedy at this point. Lanier's next option, if creating a "digital economy" of "micro transactions" fails is to create a totally "socialist network" which he admits will also never happen.
Admittedly I will have to read more into this and his stance on this.
The reason their services are free, is because you're not the consumer; you are the product. They simply lure you in with promises of status and comfort, and then sell you or your information to their actual customers.
deleted_user wrote:There is an interesting sentiment on net neutrality: in which we, the consumer, are providing a very valuable resource (information) for free, to the near unlimited gain of corporations. But the now new net neutrality system aids the consumer how...?
From Jaron Lanier, the "father of VR," and rather visionary genius: "'I don't think breaking up the companies fixes it,' Lanier said. 'I don't think regulation can really fix it. I think we have to change the financial incentives. The companies actually have to charge for their services, but even more important, people who contribute a lot of value to social networks have to have a chance to earn money back from it..... we have to create a real digital economy, instead of a fake one.'"
Obviously that'll never happen, and the best-case scenario for the consumer would be to continue using the internet for free. It's still a pretty damn good deal for internet corporatism; they're just getting greedy at this point. Lanier's next option, if creating a "digital economy" of "micro transactions" fails is to create a totally "socialist network" which he admits will also never happen.
Admittedly I will have to read more into this and his stance on this.
The reason their services are free, is because you're not the consumer; you are the product. They simply lure you in with promises of status and comfort, and then sell you or your information to their actual customers.
This doesn't even make sense.
Let's have a moral and spiritual, Christian debate of things -- of ethics and whatnot.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them in a similar context, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
You see, it relies upon you, who has made the claim(s) yourself, to justify them in that context. I can't do that for you. It's quite clear you find nothing interesting about it, but don't want it to happen at all. You've shown no lack of interest in delving into topics with more effort than you presume your counterparts will invest. Well, I'm here to be your equal in that matter for once and for all, in the very subject which you should possess the most adeptness, given it the very large influence in your world view(s).
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
You see, it relies upon you, who has made the claim(s) yourself, to justify them in that context. It's quite clear you find nothing interesting about it, but don't want it to happen at all.
I have no idea what your point is, so I can't respond to it. You'll have to make it first. "Justify my claims"? What does that mean? I really can't respond unless you describe what you want me to respond to. I only said that my principles are my own and not those of a political party. If Democrats do what I want, cool. If PVV do what I want, that's cool too. It's all good.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
You see, it relies upon you, who has made the claim(s) yourself, to justify them in that context. It's quite clear you find nothing interesting about it, but don't want it to happen at all.
I have no idea what your point is, so I can't respond to it. You'll have to make it first. "Justify my claims"? What does that mean? I really can't respond unless you describe what you want me to respond to. I only said that my principles are my own and not those of a political party. If Democrats do what I want, cool. If PVV do what I want, that's cool too. It's all good.
Need I spell it again? Justify your political and moral beliefs, even ONE, in terms of Christianity/spirituality, as you have just so mentioned that you do, with such confidence, and I will respond well in kind in the very same context as you, and we can discuss how you're probably wrong.
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
You see, it relies upon you, who has made the claim(s) yourself, to justify them in that context. It's quite clear you find nothing interesting about it, but don't want it to happen at all.
I have no idea what your point is, so I can't respond to it. You'll have to make it first. "Justify my claims"? What does that mean? I really can't respond unless you describe what you want me to respond to. I only said that my principles are my own and not those of a political party. If Democrats do what I want, cool. If PVV do what I want, that's cool too. It's all good.
Need I spell it again? Justify your political and moral beliefs, even ONE, in terms of Christianity/spirituality, as you have just so mentioned, and I will respond well in kind in the very same context as you, and we can discuss how you're probably wrong.
Ah, okay. So I think murder should be avoided. Those who do it or threaten to do it, we have a right to defend ourselves against them. How bou dah?
iwillspankyou wrote:here is a premium for you @lejend the master of using "facts" - to mislead ppl to draw the wrong conclutions you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
Republicans are too left-wing for me. And I'm not a fan of Earthly "parties." The only party I support is in the spiritual realm.
Gotta zoom out, Spanky, and see the big picture.
I have half a mind to begin a spiritual "debate" with you, whatever that means. Now I have more than half a mind to do so.
Oh really? About what? Feel free to bump Xeelee's thread about religion.
You, who has claimed to only belong to the "spiritual party" should justify your political and moral beliefs in such a context, and I will refute them, being not-so-removed from this as you may think.
That seems interesting enough. You'll have to start that thread yourself though, since Im' busy crafting a response to Cossack on health care.
You see, it relies upon you, who has made the claim(s) yourself, to justify them in that context. It's quite clear you find nothing interesting about it, but don't want it to happen at all.
I have no idea what your point is, so I can't respond to it. You'll have to make it first. "Justify my claims"? What does that mean? I really can't respond unless you describe what you want me to respond to. I only said that my principles are my own and not those of a political party. If Democrats do what I want, cool. If PVV do what I want, that's cool too. It's all good.
Need I spell it again? Justify your political and moral beliefs, even ONE, in terms of Christianity/spirituality, as you have just so mentioned, and I will respond well in kind in the very same context as you, and we can discuss how you're probably wrong.
Ah, okay. So I think murder should be avoided. Those who do it or threaten to do it, we have a right to defend ourselves against them. How bou dah?
Ah, you don't want to actually have a debate? Stop being so thick. This should be practically be a wet dream for you, Mr. Bible Quoter.
iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend can I ask you this, do you play this game? and what is your acount name there?
I mostly played AoE2. I played AoE3 briefly on Gameranger or Voobly, managed to defeat everyone with Goodspeed's British longbows strategy, but then quit.
spanky4ever 
deleted_user 
you should def join the Republican party (or you are maybe already there?)
