mcbruiser3's comments

please feel free to start up a coop then. nothing is stopping you and your friends from doing that. have at it, and good luck.

edit: apparently some people don't like this comment because it means you have to help yourself instead of the gov't giving you other people's money. get a life.

only fair if you reduce the tax burden dramatically as well. this would not just impact "evil landlords" but most of middle class as well.

and who is "we" exactly?

I love how some folks complain about paying rent as if they have no choices, as if they're somehow indentured servants or serfs beholden to the landed gentry or something.

The truth is you do have choices, even in tough times. Find a way to save money for a down payment and buy some property. Maybe even become a landlord yourself.

common sense requires no supporting evidence.

inherited wealth often disappears by the third generation

> Did that money come into their hands completely voluntarily?

Yes, if it's in the form of an investment. An investment is a risk, and like it or not, investments are a vital part of any economy. In may cases investments are how small businesses and entrepreneurs get capitalized because banks are much more risk averse. So why punish such a critical segment of the economy? You'll only end up moving the money into other areas that have less benefit for the rest of society.

who lives on $500 a month? and the economy will simply adjust to absorb this increase anyway, so hence my comment about zero benefits. also, for young people at least, "shitty" jobs build character, which seems ever more critical these days. after working a "shitty" job for a little while, a person may be motivated to better themselves, or at least get a better job.

net result being an increase in taxes on many (or at least mid-to-high earners) with zero benefits to society, only a built-in voting block for those who enable this

edit: if I wanted upvotes I'd jump on the socialism/communism bandwagon. I feel sorry for the future if this is the prevailing thought :(

but the entire society DOES reap rewards, in the form of taxes on profit and contribution to the progress of mankind.

why do we have to use google? there are other search engines. I just started using bing only because I just started using Windows 10 for the first time and it comes preloaded with edge which defaults to bing. I've hardly noticed a difference. actually, in some ways I prefer the way it organizes images and video results. I think people just default to google because, well, I'm not sure.

totally agree. also not sure people should be going to jail for it (live and let live) but increasing availability by putting into every corner 7/11 is ridiculous. sometimes I think all this is happening to keep the voting public dumb and docile.

omg tobacco is totally different from psychedelics, come on. and glue? seriously? glue has a practical purpose other than getting high. what are mushrooms good for outside of getting stoned?

who gets to decide what's censored? you?

I have to say, this article comes off as pretty biased. Gauging the future of VR by comparing it to social / mobile gaming adoption is a false comparison and just makes the author look dumb.

First of all, the author mainly writes about mobile and social games, so she obviously has no interest in VR and has probably never even tried it. Unfortunately for those on the fence about VR, she's painted an unfair and bleak picture. That's unfortunate for them because they may miss out on something quite fun and interesting.

I was a VR skeptic right up until two weeks ago when I tried a friend's DK3 and have since purchased a CV1 during the summer sale event. I was not a gamer beforehand, but the immersion of VR has sucked me in. That fact that you have to move to play is what makes it fun.

what something is seen as is largely shaped by politicians jockeying for power and muckraking journalists whoring their principals for clicks.

edit: again with the downvotes? is this not largely true? I think you give most people too much credit if you disagree with this. please back up your down votes with some kind of argument.

Yep. Stuff like this gets twisted and distorted and then whipped up by politicians, pundits and "journalists" in order to get votes, viewers and clicks. It's disgusting.

edit: downvote? what's to downvote? seriously? don't be a coward, explain yourself!

cloudfare CEO refuses to remove ISIS sites:

"CEO of CloudFlare, Matthew Prince, said that his company would not be blocking its service to websites listed, as it would mean submitting to "mob rule"." [1]

double standard much?

[1] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses...

edit: typo

are there any antifa sites being blocked or denied service? don't they incite violence in the name of ideology?

since when is breitbart equivalent to hate speech? has anyone here even read it? I have, and it looks like it's just a bunch of news that would be interesting to conservative types. I see no evidence of "hate speech".

are you sure that this isn't just left wing propaganda trying to reduce the influence of conservatives? don't forget, all of this is just a simple power struggle, and we're the pawns.

yes, he's actively trying to change the country