50% tax is acceptable? OK lets run with that on the average income. Social security is 4.2%. State income tax is somewhere greater than 5% for the average income, depending on state. So right now, we are at a 60% tax merely on income. The average income is 36 thousand. That means you are taking home roughly $14400, on average. As a comparison, the poverty line is currently at a net income of 16k. So you have just have put the average American in poverty! Definitely mention that in your campaign speeches, I'd vote for you.

Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which raises prices past the point that its customers can pay will see itself bankrupt and broken in the very short term

Obviously they aren't spending enough on education because you seem unable to read breakdowns.

2011:
DoD budget: 740 billion
DoHS budget: 48 billion

The remainder of defense spending is on veteran affairs (141 billion). I think we can treat that as justified, even if you would have chosen there not to be veterans.

Total tax receipts: 2300 billion
Of which is for social security: 820 billion
Total spendable tax reciepts: 1480 billion

Total spending: 3600 billion
Of which is for social security: 725 billion
Total spend: 2875 billion.

Total deficit :1395 billion

So we can clearly see that the defense budge comes nowhere near to filling the deficit. We could get rid of it all, sell all of the equipment to the saudis and next year, there would still be a budget deficit of 610 billion dollars. That's two thirds of all income tax raised.

To cover that we could of course put the federal income tax up on the average income from 23% to 40% (while ignoring the laffer curve). Yeah I'm sure everyone would love that. Use your head. Yes the defense budget is bloated and out of control, but damn it, so is everything else!

Sorry, but this is simply misinformed. The UK would not have become a Nazi satellite. The terrain is extremly defensible given the military the UK had (strongest navy in the world, joint strongest air force). The UK would have been extremly unlikely to fall - the Germans never had the material advantage necessary to maintain the necessary naval advantage to create a beach head in the UK.

This is not to say that the US wasn't important - supplies of food certainly helped out and without them, the war would necessarily have degnerated into a stalemate (the UK being completly unable of pushing onto the continent with its weak army). However during this time, the Soviet Union would have recovered from the Purges and swept them off the map - the far more likely option would be a communist UK than a fascist one.

Don't flatter yourself. You helped the British, but Germany never had the capability of conquering the UK after they lost the battle of Britatin. Seelow was always a failure. Thanks for helping us keep out the Russians though, not to mention helping us keep some kind of edible food on the table.

Actually there is a very good reason for 120 fps. As you've pointed out, film is shot at all of 24fps, 20fps and 30 fps depending on the source. You will thus notice that 120fps is the first refresh rate that will succesfully show all 3 forms of video. That is why 120 fps is important. 240 fps is for 3d - each eye is broadcast the 120fps, interlaced. Please think about it a little before you go off on a poorly informed rant.

You do realise that while clock speeds have remained similar (and in fact decreased on average since the peak of the p4 days), speed has dramatically increased right? Per clock instructions and core numbers have gone up massively. Try benching your shit-tastic p4 and then compare it to, say, an atom chip (which will also consume a microscopic amount of power in comparison), and prepare to be amazed. Please, please upgrade your chip. Unless you use that chip to heat your house, you're simply wasting huge amounts of power. Your investment will be recouped in a matter of months, you will have a far better system and you will no longer be the major contributor to global warming.

If current copyright law was used by everyone at every point in time, the best possible outcome would be every piece of art ever produced would be under the control of giant media conglomerates. There would be no public domain, or any works derived from it. Can you think of a single modern work that wouldn't be ruled out as derivative? Cultural output would almost completely stop. The current system of copyright is thus clearly immoral and certainly incapable of attaining the goal to which it aspires.

If that was the case, it would still be completly illegal. You may have heard of a little thing called the Geneva Convention? It explicitly protects prisoners of war from things like torture.

Two comments:

Negative Income Tax, google it.

If you tax the top income bracket at 90% where do you think the top income bracket will file taxes? For an example of this in action, see Britain in the 70s.

While the top of the line cards are stupidly expensive, part of the reason is that they are actually two cards - the 5970 and the 6990, for instance, are both dual core cards. Aside from that a mid range card will only be differentiable from the top end cards at WQXGA resolutions and only costs a maximum of $200 dollars.

Alright, I'll call that. Puzzle games, most of the adventure/platformers consoles have and ofc a variety of indie games.

That also starred John Wayne.

Ethical - yes, From a purely rational perspective, the odds of an outsourced employee being in that situation is roughly the same as the probability of the original employee having that situation. The jobs will improve the conditions of the outsourced employees more than it will lessen the conditions of the original employees, both quantatively and qualitively. It is thus the ethical option.

However, your right in a way. It is immoral, personally, for you, me and probably for most other people. However, this is not strictly logical. Our sympathies for the current employee make us place him above the outsourced employee. But ethically, all humans should have equal importance.

"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

Martin Luther King