This seems like a pointless semantic distinction to me. The fact is, the government gets a significant portion of their revenues.

He's making the point that profits are socialized as well as losses.

On this note, Colbert for President in 2012!

I'm more troubled by your use of "debatative" than I am by your argument.

According to that map you linked on wage disparity, Kazakhstan is one of the world's most egalitarian countries. I think we can agree that any metric that puts *stan better than the US is screwed up. Also, an argument could be made that the US is more of a meritocracy than Europe. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

On life expectancy, I can buy that, but I'm not sure it's policy related (I know your post didn't mention policy, but I was replying to a poster who did). There's a good portion of Americans who happily do things that are well known to kill (smoke, eat fatty foods, etc.). The government here has put a great deal of effort into educating people, and yet they still partake in these behaviors. At that point, it's not really a policy problem anymore.

He's saying that Europeans are good kids who are exercising restraint. No, it's not a good analogy.

I would mod you troll if I had points. Not because I take offense at the notion that Europeans could be better at something, but because you never actually bring up any examples/evidence. Your argument is basically "Europe is better because Europe is better and America sucks because America sucks." Examples of specific areas in which European systems are more desirable/equitable/profitable would have gone a long way toward making you less annoying.

Your view is long on optimism, but short on history.

+1. My parents were as nutty as they come, and I'm well on my way to a normal, respectable life thanks largely to my experiences in college.

This is a novel assertion, given that all the Project $10 schemes tried so far have been, guess what? DLC. See: Mass Effect 2.

As a representative of SawStop, I would like to make you aware that by your above post, you have incurred $56.30 in trademark fees. Please forward at your earliest convenience.

Torrent has costs too: risk of legal action, risk of corrupted files, inability to get the content you want, etc. It's evident that there is some cost that would be palatable as an alternative. The problem is that studios want to price at $5+ and the 'acceptable price' is imo around $1-3.

Now imagining: "Oh, and those neurons just got slammed by that Rook! What a brutal hit, Steve!"

Jersey Shore is in Miami next season, FYI.

Your absence of "it" dramatically alters your meaning.