I wear them, it's a good brand. 

1 hour ago, TLHBO said:

 Marketing works, and Jerry is the audience for this 

On 2019-08-31 at 9:50 PM, jehurey said:

But why don't you harass people by phone?

 

Because that means that regular people will find out your phone number, and possibly your name almost immediately.

 

Its a deterrance.

 

The Blizzard example I gave is perfect to explain the sociology. Blizzard already has your entire CREDIT CARD information, they have your IP address, people can't complain to Blizzard about anonymity, because Blizzard should absolutely know who everyone is and where they live.

 

People didn't want their name online because they were EMBARRASSED to have their name seen by other people online. That's what pissed them off. Because they would immediately stop the stuff that would shame them.

 

If you say something racist in public........technically I don't know your name, but we all see your face, and we can follow you to your car, see your license plate and quite possibly know where you live.  Its that knowledge that you CAN be traced, publicly, by anybody that keeps you in check.

You have every opportunity to use your name on this forum, why don't you? 

On 2019-08-31 at 8:48 PM, SheepKilla said:

Wow...just wow... 

 

this is a real post...LMFAO  

I know right? I thought it was hilarious when I read it. I'm never responding to that guy seriously ever again. 

15 hours ago, Delita said:

Loved 3 and 4, as well as 1 and 2 a long long time ago. But this game let me down tbh

Those games were just really, really good. 

I don't know much about the engine other than I like the idea of it. A cheap way to licence indie games and tools for developers to teach themselves how to make games. 

Just now, jehurey said:

No, globalization began at the turn of the 19th century.

 

We had stock exchanges in multiple countries, and trade agreements before then.

 

We should know WE were the main exporters of goods coming out of WW2. Globalization was already in effect by then.

 

...................you're an economist you say??

 

Thanks for losing the argument, you can't answer the question............and your attempts to change the subject aren't going to work.

 

Thanks for playing.

Why do I "Lose" for not answering something you have no idea of the answer either? 

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Uh huh.............yet the graph shows the disparity growing since the mid-70's

 

Do you understand THAT is what I was pointing that out?

 

Do you have an explanation for THAT?????

 

Did you think you were going to get me to FORGET the very thing we were arguing??????????????

I don't have an explanation for that specific date, but that's about when "globalization" began.

Just now, jehurey said:

There nothing without workers.

 

If the "entrepreneurs" could've found a way to make the product and make money without the workers..............they would've done it already.

 

For a supposed economist, you really make arguments that can easily be dismantled with next to no effort. lol

But that's exactly what's happening. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to make productivity without workers. Machines and globalization make it harder for workers to ask for higher wages, because they're not being more productive, machines are. 

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Nah, nobody is going to confuse you with an economist...........and the 1% don't operate the cash registers or make the product.

 

Sorry, try again.

Im sorry, but the people who make the products are the entrepreneurs, not the workers. 

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Did I say that most of the PRODUCTIVITY went to the 1%

 

Or did I say that most of the REVENUE went to the 1%

 

Do you think that pretending to play stupid and mis-reading what I typed............is going to be an effective response?

As an economist I assure you productivity and incomes are very much tied, and that the 1% are being more productive and the 99% aren't growing in productivity. 

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Yeah.

 

We can track the money. 

 

We know that the increase in productivity result in increase of profits.

 

We know where that revenue went.

 

 

See the red line.

So you're saying that since the 70's the 1% has been doing most of the productivity? 

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Doesn't matter there is zero productivity without the workers.

 

Did you think technology helping workers achieve more productivity ONLY BEGAN in the mid-1970's???????

 

Wrong, advancements in steam-machinery, electric-powered machinery has existed throughout that entire graph.

 

Your attempt to explain it is invalid.

Do you have a correct explanation for it? 

3 hours ago, jehurey said:

Actually posting information prior to the recession hitting middle-class Americans actually keeps the gap close.

 

But sure, here's a more recent one, and more importantly it shows you how the middle-class was treated prior to Republicans "Trickle-down" economics being implemented.

 

 

I assure you, that gap has not closed within the past few years.

Maybe the productivity of the country continues to grow, while the productivity of most workers stays the same?

Machines are making us more productive while workers can't do much to make productivity grow on their own. 

6 hours ago, jehurey said:

LOL and you forget that the "report" comes from NRATV and right-wing Sinclair television stations.

 

They don't "detox" in jail...........and they also end up costing the city millions in medical costs.

 

I love how you're CONTINUALLY RUNNING AWAY to other subjects after I keep on bitch-slapping you.

The video literally shows how they detox in Jail / prison

hurrr durr conservative media is bad!1

39 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Because cities have programs that MOVE homeless people to other cities, and homeless people are mobile and they move to more preferable cities (which explains Honalulu).

 

Yes homelessness and the reasons for people being homeless WORKS THE SAME everywhere in the world.

 

LOL you don't know jack shit about this, do you?

Wow this thread is really stupid.

All the people in this thread are advocating for is to arrest and jail criminals who sell and take illegal drugs, thinking it will end the homeless problem, and having them detox while in jail. You want them to detox out of jail, despite them being criminals who do drugs like heroin and meth. 

The video posted in this thread shows that a minority maybe 8 out of 599 police calls end up in sending someone to jail. This causes a rise in bold, carefree criminal behavior. The video suggests that Seattle's city counsel won't do this because its "wrong." 

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Sorry........that isn't going to work.

 

I'm pretty sure homelessness works the same way in every city, everywhere in the world.

 

They reduced homelessness by going EVEN FURTHER in left-leaning policies than either Seattle or San Francisco.

 

Are you.........NOT paying attention to anything I've typed, all of this is in my post.  And you wonder why I think I'm smarter than you.

You're pretty sure that homelessness works the same in every city?

WHY then do cities have different homelessness rates? 

https://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-u-s-cities-with-a-high-homelessness-rate/greg

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

...............you're not even saying anything that seems like a relevant point.

 

And you clearly hadn't read the article........or else you would've read that its the ONLY country in the EU that has reduced homelessness

 

.........and its reduced it by 35%

 

.............and it actually saves them 15,000 Euro PER EACH HOMELESS PERSON, every year.

 

Explain to me how "vanity" that is?

 

Or actually........let's start small...........try to make an attempt at reading, or is that too much????

Do you have any proof that the country has the homeless problem seattle or san Francisco have? 

Just now, jehurey said:

No..........looks like you can't even bring yourself to even read the article.

 

They weed out the drug users, and those would-be drug users are, in a way, actually supervised on a daily basis that helps kept them clean and on the straight path.

 

 

So it's a vanity project

40 minutes ago, jehurey said:

I love returning to this threads.

 

So what was the subject again?

 

"This is the result of extreme left-leaning policies on a city" ?????????

 

Let's find out:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

 

 

So Helsinki went even FURTHER to the left than Seattle............and they actually got homeless people off the streets and becoming more productive members of society..................YET THEY SAVED MONEY while doing so??????? They even created 300 support jobs in the process yet they SAVED 15,000 Euros per the cost of each homeless person?

 

I seem to remember somebody in this thread saying that this not only solves the problem, but actually saves more money while doing so.Who was it?

 

Even if you gave all the homeless people houses, they still would have the problems homeless people have, because they're on drugs. 

Im watching the video now. 

I like how people blame housing shortages for homelessness, or mental health (As if mentally ill people are guaranteed to be homeless, wtf) but not drugs. It seems to be a drug problem more than anything, not housing or schizophrenics.

Just now, HolyAx said:

Nice! You got the upper body pretty well, but her legs are way too manly (unless she is trans). And her butt is somewhat deflated. 

 

 The whole point of the drawing was to draw sexy muscular legs. I wanted to practice them, I'm getting better at drawing legs!!

I agree with the butt. 

27 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Or you can just have people migrate, and have people already in adult-form that are ready to contribute to society immediately.

 

Its not rocket science.

 

Where exactly did you get the idea that I was making this a "poor = lesser" argument?

 

I'm talking about proper parenting needed to bring up children, though money does have something to do with it, that wasn't what I was saying.

LOL, he can't even man-up to do it.

 

....among many other instances. LOL

Migration has way more problems than natural birth and naturally born citizens. 

There's the case of high crime, foreign spying, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex slavery, which are all big problems in the case of immigration. 

At least have a skilled immigration filter to preserve some semblance of identity and unity in the country.  

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No, he was fascist.

 

He was a hypocrite. He said that he had a black and white view about crime, yet he allowed certain crimes to happen.

 

He was a misogynist, he would even insinuate that certain crimes against women WERE tolerated because they were sluts or whores.

 

He says he's one thing, yet he doesn't actually fulfill that code.

He's going against the modern current, he isn't trying to create a universalized racial family state structure, where the health of one person of the race affects the health of the whole, which is fascism.