PotshotPolka

Need to teach these children how a real troll rolls.

I've seen this cat before. Did you pick up this cat? That's a steal.

Can we make a permanent "These are the suggested builds at the time" thread, sticky it, then tell everyone to go there? Also it looks... subpar. The first one also is extremely underpowered in the GPU area. Also didn't tink just tell you to wait it out a month for the new cards to release and prices to plummet?

Congrats on your first mass thankyou post. Now please proceed to have your hopes dashed as absolutely nothing happens even though your statement has overwhelming support.

We have one bro: http://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317

It now goes by the name of Pimp Juice.

Pretty much this. Also if price allows why not go for a Q-Class Quad core instead? They have some sweet deals on Socket 775 Mobos too.

It'd lag on higher settings, what are the rest of your specs?

it needs moar cowbell.

Was it not made explicitly clear you would put this shit away or face banning?

I found this video more entertaining than starving Africans.

I clearly remember you getting blasted in the face for doing that in PB.

WUT WUT.

OH SWEET JESUS.

A motherfucking community.

Been there, done that.

The fuck I won't.

Sure bro. Except it's not your fucking money.

This is the point I've tried to make in a million different arguments. There is ZERO empirical evidence to support this phenomenon. The keynesian perspective (which mind you, is what you've been preaching this whole time, is actually a weird perverted thing that is what some would call a mixed economy) is that the government should be enlisted to curtail these "shortcomings". The last 80 years of experimentation really have done nothing than undermine Keynesian and protectionist economic policies, which are the real grit of all social programs. Christ dude, the goddamn New Deal essentially is responsible a massive part of the financial market collapse. I'm done arguing with you on subjective points. You understand the definition, but you can't seem to understand why "should" is something to be left to individual. More Keynesian crap. It actually artificially increases demand in the market and just makes schooling more expensive and competitive, with no real increase in the job market in itself. But that's besides the point. Benefit me? I'll be the one to make decisions with my own money to benefit myself.

No. My idea isn't irrational. I just wanted to pull out of your basis for your argument. You, think, and by think I mean irrationally assert, that one's ability is the not the determinant of the Oh Holy Haves, and Have Nots. If you want to know why it doesn't "work" understand the principle reason behind working. People work for profit. The Soviets tried to flip this, and what they got was a direct result. Soviet factory foreman soon began creating as little as possible while maximizing the amount of resources they could conserve to keep their workers and equipment from falling into disrepair. If they produced efficiently, they would be passed up by the quotas and would in turn receive less, and their status of living would plummet. It was, essentially, an inverted capitalist society. You can't seem to grasp the concept that what you produce is yours. Would you be willing to walk into a store to buy a drink, watch the person in front of you pay $2.00 for his drink, and then be charged $4.00 for yours on the basis you make twice as much? Why then, should you pay more for the same, or less from a government? You answer because they need. Need is a subjective thing Lux. Need won't feed you either. You say some jobs are "vital". By what standard? Doctors and lawyers spend years learning their trade, incurring costs in exchange for their knowledge. The jobs are difficult, as is the material, and relatively few people are willing to pursue them. Ditch digging on the other hand, is something most are able to do, since it requires few learned skills. Many laborers are able to do it, therefore the costs are pushed lower since wages are competitive. The same can be said of doctors or lawyers. Their skills are not cheap because their schedules are crammed. How should it be decided who they service? Why, it would make sense that the person willing to pay the most should be entitled, since it is a free market where we can outbid others right? Finally you claim the rich undeservedly hold the means of production, that poor live meagerly, and should have more. Your Europeans societies were feudal for centuries as most were. I'll agree on the point oligarchies and aristocracies monopolized markets with political power, but that is no longer the case... well it isn't here anyways, you fools still salute a Queen for her bloodline and cry for equality at the same time, which is beautifully ironic. So why should a poor man have more? I'll tell you why not. It isn't because he's necessarily lazy, or for that matter that the rich monopolize markets and should dole out a bit to keep his neighbor in line, and from shanking him. You say "should". Fuck your should. The difference between inequal taxation and beggars is the stick. You can decline beggars and charitable causes, its your choice. I have nothing against philanthropy. Your government, and the majority however, aren't so civil. This isn't saying taxation is bad, that's for anarchists and the stupid libertarians (not all libertarians, the stupid ones) to say. You cry for equality, so do I. If you seriously think my line of thinking is so arrogant, then check your premises, I've checked them many, many times, and I cannot find a more moral answer.

God I love Europeans.

A little socialist brah? That's the entire Marxist dogma in a nutshell. You think a "society" is better because you reallocate wealth in regards to one's needs as opposed to their ability. So I'll say it again. Who the hell are you to say a millionaire should pay out more for the same service? It's irrational, and for that matter arrogant. The point of "free medication" if you insist on calling it that is the same as free healthcare, welfare, and other benefits allocated by your state. I know a Poli Sci professor that I detest, but atleast has the nerve to say it like it is, that he believes limiting the freedom and power of the minority (rich) is (BIG NORMATIVE BATMAN) more preferable since it can be reallocated to the majority (poor).

You don't understand the foundations of OTF sir.