I guess I am thinking not so much about people who are more middle of the road, which is what you seem to be describing - people who make some money and live above their means and then never save up (I think a lot of us are definitely guilty of that, myself included!) - but I guess I am thinking more about people…

It backs up the story. If I were to write a piece of fiction, let's call it 2031 in honour of Orwell, that had a character in it called Big Brother that was recognisably Obama:

Unfortunately, it's not so much an issue of "So-and-so worked hard for his money and you just want to take it from him because you're lazy" (not saying this is your argument, but I hear it often) as much as it is an issue of privilege. What I, personally, believe to be one of the biggest roadblocks to achieving…

This is obviously true. I mean there is no one I can think of more evil and less generous than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Those evil bastards will burn in hell for being so evil and not generous. Point being this is bullshit. If someone was raised to believe that they should give back and do for those less…

I think it's kinda obvious.

How about John Kerry or Al Gore? Isn't the latter's net worth the same as Romney's these days? I seem to remember reading that the other day.

I am skeptical of assuming behavior exhibited during a Monopoly game corresponds directly with behavior in the real world. People playing Monopoly know that it's a game, and that there are no real consequences for what happens - therefore, they are likely to be more competitive and success-flaunting than they would…

Liberal bs. Just another excuse to fire up the "eat the rich" base.

Nobody ever got rich by giving their money away.

I don't believe it. I need a grant for a few million dollars to test this theory.

Ah, no. No crying.

I went in with high hopes because Cube was so awesome, but me and the entire rest of the audience couldn't stop laughing for the last 10 minutes of the movie. Just terrible.

As a homeowner and car owner, that made me cringe.

Well that is a well reasoned argument and I take your point but as I said in my original post, even if he meant it from the start it was a bad decision.

Watched Blade Runner three times in its initial release, then on Thursdays at midnight at the St. Mark's Cinema, and at revival houses in NYC whenever it was shown — and the question as to whether or not Deckard is a Replicant has been out there from the beginning. Really. Scott intentionally planted the idea in the…

The ending was better done in the movie. I hated the ending when I originally read it.

Signs. Game, set and match. I don't know about you, but if I were attacking an environment in which acid rains out of the sky and covers 74% of the surface, I would wear some sort of protection.

Splice was certainly dividing. I can totally see why people were disappointed or just indifferent to it.

Yeah, I felt that Gibson kind of went over board with the prose in PR. SC and ZH are much much easier to read, and the characters are alot better. In fact SC and ZH center around the same characters with characters from PR (besides Bigend and the company Blue Ant) only receiving a passing mention.
As far as comparing…

The American people have really been pulling hard for this one for the last 12 years at least.