It could've been an insightful comment if you would have left your 'Big Government/Tea Party' agenda out of it.

The New Deal (what you call a failure of Big Gubermnt) was a reaction to the catastrophic failing of decades of 'Small Government'. Lax regulations, complete lack of worker protections and extremely libertarian approach to markets led to the great depression. The New Deal literally saved people from starvation.

What led to the current depression is the almost complete reversal of policies that created the 'American Golden Age' of the 50s through 70s.
Surprisingly when you drastically reduce taxes you incur a massive deficit. Even more surprisingly, when you remove all stop gaps that were put in place to remove market volatility, the markets, fueled by unsustainable greed, fail catastrophically.

All your Tea Party rhetoric neglects to take into consideration what amounts to be a century of contrary empiric evidence and will eventually lead to a full circle. You'll eliminate all government intervention and let the 'Free Market' take care of you, see millions of people in astounding poverty and millions starving on the streets and whoops, suddenly there will be popular cry for socially conscious policy.

Your post wouldn't bother me if you hadn't so assuredly made so many factually incorrect statements, while appealing to 'common sense'

This is patently false. To this date there isn't a single poker bot that beats a skilled human player over any statistically significant sample, and not for lack of trying to develop one. Mostly because there isn't an optimal decision tree that isn't directly influenced by the dynamics of a particular game. I'd be more then excited if you'd provide a single example to the contrary.

I'd say it's a little of both, with chance being predominant in the game's actual elements, and skill being predominant in its (human) players.

This right here makes it apparent that you have no understanding of poker. The 'chance' element of poker, which any person with some background in math/statistics would call 'variance', is evenly distributed among the players. What creates a difference in results, i.e profits, over a significant sample, is the 'skill' element. This is to say, that two players of different skill levels and unlimited funds will not have an even result over say 25k of poker hands.

As I've repeatedly stressed above, poker 'results' are measured over a significant sample size. It is extremely unlikely that a professional would lose to a novice over 350 hands. Not to mention 5k hands.

The thing that bothers me most about your comment is not how wildly inaccurate it is (which is true) but the modding it got which reflects the amount of people that share your ignorance.

First, every single developed country I can think of has some sort of "guaranteed basic income". I can't think of any country in which rampant slouching ensued and society collapsed upon itself. The reason why this didn't happen is in your own comment:

What you seem to fail to understand is that the basic income you are guaranteed by the state is just that - basic. It covers housing, heating and most of your basic groceries. It doesn't cover computer equipment, video games, cell phone, books, drugs, clothes, condoms, beers at the pub, toys, sports equipment or coffee.

If you're telling me that you will be content with just the bare basics you will get from the state, you can achieve something fairly similar all by yourself. Work part-time, two shifts a week, in Walmart. Rent an one room apartment. Drink only bulk bought, store-brand soda and eat boiled potatoes and bread. Here it is, your slouchy heaven.

The US invaded Afghanistan because there was money in it, for someone other then the American people that is. I think that the idea that invading a country and occupying it for 9 years just to secure the extradition of a single man is preposterous. I mean seriously, why the fuck do you have Delta/Seals/Rangers/SAD if you need to deploy a whole army to catch a singly person?

Not to mention the fact that the Taliban publicly agreed to extradite Bin Laden if the US supplied some sort of evidence. Later they relinquished that request and offered to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan, but Pakistan refused to take him due to Musharf feeling that "He can not guarantee his safety". Yep. Pakistan, your "Ally in the War on Terror".

Anyone perpetuating the myth that Afghanistan is the just, necessary war (in contrast to the Iraq war) is either disingenuous or tragically ignorant of the facts.

This is a straw man and an ill conceived ad hominem attack (i.e - "Assange is a coward because he's afraid of assassination!"). You could just as well say "Amnesty International does nothing to stop famine" or "Oxfam does nothing to stop the genocide in Sudan" and blame them for trying to portray themselves as charitable organizations. You do not criticize a person or an organization for the good work they didn't do. There will always be the next worthwhile cause.

I personally don't mind if he does focus his efforts on the US/UK. They do enough highly questionable things to keep a small organization such as WL busy for decades to come. It is not his job nor prerogative to publish information in a manner which would be equally embarrassing to all countries . He runs a site on the internet, not a UN/governmental organization. If he so wishes he can focus exclusively on uncovering 4chan users identities.

Also, given your own stated opinion on the way that Russia/China/EvilCountryX deal with leaks, it is entirely conceivable that there are far less potential sources who are willing to risk their lives in order to expose such information.

It has been generally accepted that Michigan was nicknamed "The Wolverine State" for the abundance of wolverines that once roamed the peninsula."