The first sale doctrine thing had nothing to do with the company's failure. The game sold well (though it probably would have sold better had it not been sandwiched between Skyrim and Diablo). The reason the company is failing is because Schilling took on huge amounts of debt, and missed his original release target by two years.
The moral of this story, if there is one, is that you shouldn't loan money to capricious millionaires to help them fund their dream projects.
One would be hard pressed to come up with a story that is interesting to the whole world. Honestly, even setting aside the baseball angle, would your average Russian or Indian care about the bankruptcy of a small American video game shop?
So apparently Japan, Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and almost all of Latin America don't count. And to think, Europeans think Americans are insular...
Quite right. Instead, they buy fifty thousand dollar Rolex Yachtmaster platinum cosmographs so that they can track the phase of the moon while complaining about having to pay taxes.
If that's true, then what is the NDAA doing that you're so worked up about? The NDAA says it doesn't change the law regarding US citizens. You say that the law already allows for indefinite detention of citizens. So why is everyone bitching about the NDAA and not the law that is actually, according to you, the problem?
So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.
Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?
You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.
The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?
Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s. Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit. Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.
Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?
Europe is struggling because of their austerity policies. Every country to institute them is worse off than it was before. It has nothing to do with an entitlement mentality. It's all down to the absurdity of fighting high unemployment and low consumer confidence by firing people and taking away safety nets.
The time for spending cuts is when things are good. Unfortunately it is exactly those times that the political will to cut is lowest.
What makes you think the slack would have been picked up in the US? If GM and Chrysler had both gone under, I doubt Ford would have had the money to pick up the pieces. More likely the names would have been bought by overseas companies, and most of the jobs would go with them. The factories would be sold off at firesale prices, sit idle for a while, and maybe get repurposed. There's no guarantee of that, however, as there is plenty of precedent for factories in America closing and never reopening. It's quite possible that they'd be disassembled, the machines sold off piecemeal, and the land used for something else, as the creditors tried to recoup their losses.
Now, maybe things would have worked out fine. But maybe not. And in the meantime, a new influx of unemployment and uncertainty was the last thing our country needed.
And how much of the corporate profits go to retirement plans? The crowd was saying we should tax the rich, and he was ducking the question by saying "Hey, the rich are people too!" Well, yes Mitt, they are. But they're people with way more spending money than anyone else. Taxing them doesn't decrease their quality of life the way it does when you tax a regular person. But he doesn't want to face that truth, so he quickly changes the subject to talk about 401(k)s, as if you and I are making some significant portion of corporate profits.
That sounds like the sort of lie a person would hear on Fox News. Like, a million different people made a million different predictions, one of them happened to come true, and so "everyone knew this company was gonna fail!"
But hey, if you believe that, I got this great system for predicting the outcomes of ball games. I'll let you in on it free for the first four games, and when it works all four times, you pay for it. Sound good?
Regular people own such miniscule portions of corporations as to be insignificant. In fact, they generally don't own the shares. The fund manager does. You get to take all the risk, and the manager takes a cut of the profit, or a cut of what's left if he loses your money. And as an added bonus, he gets to vote the shares, so you don't even get a say in how the company is run. And he gets to pay a lower tax rate than you. It's a sweet gig, if you can get it.
You don't think there's a gain for the average American to have wildly successful tech companies with factories on our shores?
Solyndra was a reasonable investment. Had it succeeded, it would have been good for the country. Unfortunately, it failed, and we lost some money. As any successful businessman can tell you, the proper response to a failed investment is not "give up and never invest again".
He most certainly was not trying to combat the perception of corporations as faceless entities that are easier to demonize.
Here's the full exchange:
ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!
ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!
ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.
AUDIENCE: [LAUGHTER]
ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!
ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend.
It's clear that the audience is complaining that corporate profits go into the leaders' pockets, not to "the people". Romney is equivocating by saying that, "Well, the executives are people!" Technically, Romney is right, but he is using very tricky phrasing.
When he says "we could raise taxes on people", the implication is that we'd be raising taxes on all, or at least most, people. When he says "Whose pockets? People’s pockets!", now he's using "people" to refer to a very tiny group. That little oratorical trick of using a word one way at first and another way later is a well know slight of tongue, and the crowd called him on it.
I'm not saying the judge was in the right... he wasn't... but pirate bay is now a "basic human freedom"? You're diluting the phrase. We need it for cases of police brutality and indefinite detention.
Read the OP. It's clear that we're using the word "terrorist" to refer to Muslim extremists. Stop watering down the meaning of terms. If you're going to change "terrorist" to mean "anyone who makes me scared", you might as well scrap the word all together. We have plenty of good terms to describe authoritarian governments already.
The terrorists aren't winning. They're dieing every day in the mountains of the middle east, suffering from severe PTSD thanks to the terror of drones patrolling the skies, and have accomplished nothing like their actual goals. Oh, wait, you don't actually think "they hate our freedom", do you? The terrorist leaders just want power, and they've gotten none of that. The terrorist lackeys want a glorious stuggle, and they've gotten none of that. Of course, their loss doesn't count as our win.
Nobody's winning. That tends to be the outcome of prolonged struggles.
Slashdot Mirror
Only with certain cable/satellite companies. If, like me, you get your cable from a small, cheaper, regional supplier, then you're SOL.
The first sale doctrine thing had nothing to do with the company's failure. The game sold well (though it probably would have sold better had it not been sandwiched between Skyrim and Diablo). The reason the company is failing is because Schilling took on huge amounts of debt, and missed his original release target by two years.
The moral of this story, if there is one, is that you shouldn't loan money to capricious millionaires to help them fund their dream projects.
One would be hard pressed to come up with a story that is interesting to the whole world. Honestly, even setting aside the baseball angle, would your average Russian or Indian care about the bankruptcy of a small American video game shop?
So apparently Japan, Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and almost all of Latin America don't count. And to think, Europeans think Americans are insular...
Quite right. Instead, they buy fifty thousand dollar Rolex Yachtmaster platinum cosmographs so that they can track the phase of the moon while complaining about having to pay taxes.
Interesting. So what should we do then? If OBL had gotten a US green card first, would we just have to give up and let him have his way with us?
If that's true, then what is the NDAA doing that you're so worked up about? The NDAA says it doesn't change the law regarding US citizens. You say that the law already allows for indefinite detention of citizens. So why is everyone bitching about the NDAA and not the law that is actually, according to you, the problem?
That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.
So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.
Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.
This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.
It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?
You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.
The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?
Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.
Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?
Europe is struggling because of their austerity policies. Every country to institute them is worse off than it was before. It has nothing to do with an entitlement mentality. It's all down to the absurdity of fighting high unemployment and low consumer confidence by firing people and taking away safety nets.
The time for spending cuts is when things are good. Unfortunately it is exactly those times that the political will to cut is lowest.
I was wondering how long it would be before some sheltered fool claimed America was just as bad.
What makes you think the slack would have been picked up in the US? If GM and Chrysler had both gone under, I doubt Ford would have had the money to pick up the pieces. More likely the names would have been bought by overseas companies, and most of the jobs would go with them. The factories would be sold off at firesale prices, sit idle for a while, and maybe get repurposed. There's no guarantee of that, however, as there is plenty of precedent for factories in America closing and never reopening. It's quite possible that they'd be disassembled, the machines sold off piecemeal, and the land used for something else, as the creditors tried to recoup their losses.
Now, maybe things would have worked out fine. But maybe not. And in the meantime, a new influx of unemployment and uncertainty was the last thing our country needed.
And how much of the corporate profits go to retirement plans? The crowd was saying we should tax the rich, and he was ducking the question by saying "Hey, the rich are people too!" Well, yes Mitt, they are. But they're people with way more spending money than anyone else. Taxing them doesn't decrease their quality of life the way it does when you tax a regular person. But he doesn't want to face that truth, so he quickly changes the subject to talk about 401(k)s, as if you and I are making some significant portion of corporate profits.
That sounds like the sort of lie a person would hear on Fox News. Like, a million different people made a million different predictions, one of them happened to come true, and so "everyone knew this company was gonna fail!"
But hey, if you believe that, I got this great system for predicting the outcomes of ball games. I'll let you in on it free for the first four games, and when it works all four times, you pay for it. Sound good?
Regular people own such miniscule portions of corporations as to be insignificant. In fact, they generally don't own the shares. The fund manager does. You get to take all the risk, and the manager takes a cut of the profit, or a cut of what's left if he loses your money. And as an added bonus, he gets to vote the shares, so you don't even get a say in how the company is run. And he gets to pay a lower tax rate than you. It's a sweet gig, if you can get it.
Out of curiosity, what is done in your country if a person owes more money than they can ever hope to repay?
You don't think there's a gain for the average American to have wildly successful tech companies with factories on our shores?
Solyndra was a reasonable investment. Had it succeeded, it would have been good for the country. Unfortunately, it failed, and we lost some money. As any successful businessman can tell you, the proper response to a failed investment is not "give up and never invest again".
He most certainly was not trying to combat the perception of corporations as faceless entities that are easier to demonize.
Here's the full exchange:
ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!
ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!
ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.
AUDIENCE: [LAUGHTER]
ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!
ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend.
It's clear that the audience is complaining that corporate profits go into the leaders' pockets, not to "the people". Romney is equivocating by saying that, "Well, the executives are people!" Technically, Romney is right, but he is using very tricky phrasing.
When he says "we could raise taxes on people", the implication is that we'd be raising taxes on all, or at least most, people. When he says "Whose pockets? People’s pockets!", now he's using "people" to refer to a very tiny group. That little oratorical trick of using a word one way at first and another way later is a well know slight of tongue, and the crowd called him on it.
Have fun getting an MRI.
I'm not saying the judge was in the right... he wasn't... but pirate bay is now a "basic human freedom"? You're diluting the phrase. We need it for cases of police brutality and indefinite detention.
Read the OP. It's clear that we're using the word "terrorist" to refer to Muslim extremists. Stop watering down the meaning of terms. If you're going to change "terrorist" to mean "anyone who makes me scared", you might as well scrap the word all together. We have plenty of good terms to describe authoritarian governments already.
The terrorists aren't winning. They're dieing every day in the mountains of the middle east, suffering from severe PTSD thanks to the terror of drones patrolling the skies, and have accomplished nothing like their actual goals. Oh, wait, you don't actually think "they hate our freedom", do you? The terrorist leaders just want power, and they've gotten none of that. The terrorist lackeys want a glorious stuggle, and they've gotten none of that. Of course, their loss doesn't count as our win.
Nobody's winning. That tends to be the outcome of prolonged struggles.