Wall Street Occupation

[st_dux 26]

Where there's no government, there are oligarchs and corporations that rule and nobody elected them (not even in a phony way).

Without government interference, the corporations' only source of power is their own market efficiency. A corporation that gains power in that way is good for the worker and the consumer alike. Of course, this is purely hypothetical as the government seems to be always entwined with corporate affairs. As for the oligarchs, well, they are the government.

In my opinion America either needs to give up free trade with China or declare war on them.

Because they can't compete otherwise. Too many powerful unions and minimum wage laws etc. Too high tax rates etc etc etc.

Declaring war on China is a ridiculously terrible idea. We should instead remove roughly three fourths of all business regulations, get rid of the Department of Labor altogether, eliminate all minimum wage laws, and give employers the same rights as employees (no more being sued for "unjustified termination" bullshit). With such an ease in restrictions, the United States could once again regain its status as the most efficient manufacturing country in the world. We could have a new Gilded Age (only this time perhaps we'd properly call it a "Golden Age").

[That guy 10]

i saw a whole bunch of protesters in my city yesterday. they didnt really go out of thier way to put their message into positive light. just a bunch of hippies and collage students making conflicting and nonsensical statements on the side of a road next to a bank. it reminded me of this.

infact the sort-of-but-not-really-"leader" of this whole movement micheal moore him self on national TV that these people have no goals, objectives, and no leaders and dont really have a strategy for, well anything. and he seems to frame this as a positive thing! its a bunch of hippies who are naive to the workings of the world, expressing their discontentment about...? well everything apparently, valid reason or not

LOL

[gammadust 12]

Declaring war on China is a ridiculously terrible idea. We should instead remove roughly three fourths of all business regulations, get rid of the Department of Labor altogether, eliminate all minimum wage laws, and give employers the same rights as employees (no more being sued for "unjustified termination" bullshit). With such an ease in restrictions, the United States could once again regain its status as the most efficient manufacturing country in the world. We could have a new Gilded Age (only this time perhaps we'd properly call it a "Golden Age").

Yeah Gilded Age... and Slavery at the same time!

How hard can it be to make you understand that "Regulations" are a requirement for proper coexistence of conflicting interests? One of the main reasons the whole world is observing a "Systemic Crisis" is precisely because of non-conformance to regulations as a general practice. Sometimes those regulations are even removed...

Glass-Steagall (1933) act was removed by the introduction of the Financial Services Modernization Act (Bill-Clinton - 1999), in a move that could be seen itself as criminal by the legislative branch given the negative economic impact therein, in order to allow the criminal Citicorp merger with Travelers (1998). This merger was unlawful because it occured under Glass-Steagall and constituted a merger between Commercial and Financial banking. The previous legislation was important because it prevented lunatic levels of banking leveraging (capital ratio to risk) and to put in the same box risk free assets along with high risk ones. With that deregulation it became possible to observe exacly what you are observing today in world wide finance, it only took 8-10 years for the effects to surface.

So lets remove even more preventive legislation that exists, let the bloodsuckers take it all and consider it normal lawful practice (even with retrospective effect - one of the big "No-No"s of legislation).

If anything more regulatory legislation should be introduced, but it is too late for that. The system requires one and its inverse at the same time!

Conclusion: The system is unsustainable and its inner contradictions are forcing an inevitable descent phase.

Edited October 2, 2011 by gammadust

[Baff1 0]

Declaring war on China is a ridiculously terrible idea. We should instead remove roughly three fourths of all business regulations, get rid of the Department of Labor altogether, eliminate all minimum wage laws, and give employers the same rights as employees (no more being sued for "unjustified termination" bullshit). With such an ease in restrictions, the United States could once again regain its status as the most efficient manufacturing country in the world. We could have a new Gilded Age (only this time perhaps we'd properly call it a "Golden Age").

Sounds all well and good, but take a look at what is happening in Greece.

If you ask the American people to go back to Chinese sized pay checks, working conditions and living standards... you are more likely to start a civil insurrection than anything else.

A war with China is a better option than a war with eachother.

It's just too large a change in the social order to go down peaceably in my opinion. Any government that attempts it is flirting with overthrow.

As for regulations, we have regulations coming out of our arses.

This system doesn't work.

For years now regulations have been driving investment and jobs to countries where there aren't so many.

The British government have propsed legislation to seperate investment and high street banking in a mirror of the U.S. law.

The result?

The worlds largest bank is leaving London and moving to Hong Kong.

And as a shareholder in that bank, I have to say I am very happy about this.

The biggest bloodsuckers of all are the legislators themselves. The further my money gets away from their control, the safer and more productive it will be.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Baff1

[gammadust 12]

As for regulations, we have regulations coming out of our arses.

This system doesn't work.

For years now regulations have been driving investment and jobs to countries where there aren't so many.

The British government have propsed legislation to seperate investment and high street banking in a mirror of the U.S. law.

The result?

The worlds largest bank is leaving London and moving to Hong Kong.

And as a shareholder in that bank, I have to say I am very happy about this.

The biggest bloodsuckers of all are the legislators themselves. The further my money gets away from their control, the safer and more productive it will be.

The point I was trying to make is that regulation is an essential function for a sustainable and balanced society given its inner conflicting interests.

The fact that Capitalism drives for complete deregulation is old (ie laissez-faire laissez-passer, removal of protectionist economic spaces), is also in contradiction with a long term vision of any society.

Globalization forced on countries (to whatever extent they were economicaly Capitalistic) a higher step in deregulation so business could stay competitive.

Legislators are mere tools in the hands of corporate interests, the latter ones are the main beneficiaries of deregulation, not its inverse as you try to put it. Legislators are mere enablers of all this (despite being criminally well paid ones). Remember though that if they were functioning in their electorate interests things could be slightly different.

Edited October 2, 2011 by gammadust

[Hans Ludwig 0]

How hard can it be to make you understand that "Regulations" are a requirement for proper coexistence of conflicting interests? One of the main reasons the whole world is observing a "Systemic Crisis" is precisely because of non-conformance to regulations as a general practice. Sometimes those regulations are even removed

The United States legal system is designed and based off of British Common Law. For many years the Courts have been dealing with mediation, arbitration and case law when disputes arise between two or more parties. I think that's a pretty efficient system and doesn't need the legislative or executive branches trying to game the system so that one group or party will be at a clear advantage. Matter of fact, I'm a firm believer that is why the Courts are so weak is because of the aforementioned governmental bodies (legislative and Executive) circumventing due process or creating law that helps destroy justice.

But what do I know? I just used to be legislative aide and now work for a large commercial litigation law firm. And I'm studying for the LSAT.

[Minutemen 10]

Because you're confusing capitalism and liberalism, which are close but different concepts. Governement always interfered in capitalist countries economies, usually acting like a regulation power.

There is no such thing as a "regulation power" in a capitalist society, to say it exaggerated. If the Goverment "regulates", it protects monopolies and the result are more laws and regulations and prohibitions for the rest of the people. Thats some kind of planed economy.

Because the so called "law of the market" needs regulations, laws enforcement.

No! Thats why its called "law of the market" and not "law of the lawenforcers".

There is just one law: Don't steal. Working Power is property. Live is property. Your own property and no one has a right to gain something from what you earned. Thats Capitalism, thats the right to own and trade. Thats freedome. Everything else will slowly or fast lead to slavery.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Minutemen

[Baff1 0]

The point I was trying to make is that regulation is an essential function for a sustainable and balanced society given its inner conflicting interests.

I understood your meaning, but I don't strongly agree with it.

Currently, the cure is worse than the disease.

Who do I trust to tell me what is a balanced society?

You perhaps? Some random politician?

In fact I don't think I trust anyone to tell me that. My parents perhaps. My Mrs probably. You would need to earn my lifelong respect before you would be qualified to make those judgements for me. Anybody who hasn't but believes themselves to be in a position to judge that for me, they are my enemy. Powercrazed.

Who do I think has greater expertise in sustainability, a life long household name company, or some jumped up little politician who is only going to be in the job for 4 years?

Some nitwit little student in one of these protests perhaps? Aged 20. An expert in sustainability... Righto.

These chaps are probably smashing every window and car they can. They are experts in wanton aimless destruction not "sustainability".

(Lets be quite clear on this matter. If they are aged 20. They are not experts in anything at all. They are just angsty young people rebelling against the man).

I volunteer my money to corporations in return for a quantifiable return.

The government takes my money under the duress of force for no quantifiable return.

Who should I trust more?

Those who need force to persuade me, or those I and everyone they interact with, can clearly see that it is in our direct intrests to do so?

Why should I trust the regulaters not to be acting in their own self-intrests above anyone elses any more than I should trust a corporation member not to be doing so?

Are they too not equally as susceptable to the human flaws of greed and envy and avarice?

Corporations don't want to be regulated.

They may do their best to influence regulations in their favour, but that is a costly enterprise. It raises their overheads to do this, not lowers them.

The layer of beurocracy this adds costs money. It decreases competativeness and productivity.

Those publicly funded corporations that have electorates, in my opinion, act in their intrests far more often than any one in the political process does. They are more directly accountable. More democratic.

It's a function of their size. The larger the institution, the less accountable they are to each individual that it is comprised of.

But also it is a function of necessity. In a corporation each member serves a function. The shareholder provides capital. The janitor keeps the floor clean. The manager makes sure that all the jobs that need doing are getting done.

Each and every single member has an importance to the whole.

Just like a union or a political party, a group of people can form a corporation, a body of people, and use that unity of purpose to influence government with more power than they could achieve if they were just single individuals acting alone in a disorganised fashion.

There is that danger.

Alternatively, a body of people with the will and the skill and the resources to be highly productive have the capability to influence government favourably towards themselves.

Given that we want to encourage people to work together and pool their resources for increased productivity, this can easily be taken to be a positive for society if you were of a mind to do so.

Countries (not capitalism) drive for free trade when free trade best suits them and protectionism when free trade does not. This is an act of regulation.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Baff1

[-martin- 10]

Working Power is property + no one has a right to gain something for what you earned + Everything else will slowly or fast lead to slavery?

So the workforce is the property of the owner of the company, if the company makes profit nobody has the right to gain anything from it hence the work force has no right to get paid from the profit and end up working for free. Isn't this itself slavery?

Basically to put it all in to simple words, on the left is capitalism, on the right is communism (a simpler form of capitalism).

[Minutemen 10]

So the workforce is the property of the owner of the company,

No! Its mine! My workforce is MY property! Don't play foolish, i hate it when people act dumber as they are.

if the company makes profit nobody has the right to gain anything from it hence the work force has no right to get paid from the profit and end up working for free.

I trade my workforce, i barter it on voluntary base, for money or goods. So if the baaad greedy capitalist company owner don't pay me as arranged, he steal my workforce and here comes the only task for the state in economical isues: They must be enforce to cash in their part of the contrect.

In other case, if there is no state power for that task, i could do that myself. And i tell you, no one tries to screw up a population were every 12th men ownes a weapon to defende his property, live and interessts. Thats why we as human beings made them.

And if you one of these people which things capitalism, and companys, and enterprise and markets and all these things are bad, start a bussiness by yourown and make it better. You will soon understand that the Goverment is the exploiter.

People who have no guts join the socialists because they talk attentive, but they don't care for people and the hole thing is just about taking such rights away.

And i don't waste any more time on that because i can care less.

[-martin- 10]

No! Its mine!

If its "yours", I assume that you are the owner of the company because a waiter usually desn't "own" the workforce of a pub.

I trade my workforce, i barter it on voluntary base, for money or goods.

Well, I don't think that your workforce or their families (yes the workforce have families too) would be very happy to have you as their manager and would come to set your business on fire soon :D

If I understand you correctly, then this is the perfect example of why we need governments to regulate the market, working conditions and human rights for everyone, or soon we would have kids working in factories again, a barbarian idea isn’t it? Sadly this still goes on today in 3rd world countries where the governments only role is to make sure that corporations get their money

Edited October 2, 2011 by -Martin-

[Baff1 0]

I worked in a factory when I was kid.

I worked in a couple of factories, also a shop and I had a paper round (sometimes two).

It might sound like a barbarian idea to you, but I quite enjoyed being the richest kid in school.

It's quite important to remember what sort of society we are discussing. In a country where poverty = starvation and death, the ability for a child to work is the difference between life and death perhaps.

Do you really wish to take those kids jobs away from them?

Are you able to offer them something better if you do?

Edited October 2, 2011 by Baff1

[Minutemen 10]

If I understand you correctly,

No, you don't understand and even if you do you play the foolish kid to avoid your own insight of the mechanism of trade and markets becaus it would fit with your sociopathic and parasitical attitude.

My Workforce, to use a hammer or the knowledge to do computer stuff, is my personal property and i can barter it for what i want. Simple enough for you?

3rd world countries

Do they have property rights in those countrys? No, they have planned economy where monopolies controll the market by law and law enforcers on goverments payroll. Thats the model socialists want to install in the western world to keep everyone in controll.

or soon we would have kids working in factories again, a barbarian idea isn’t it?

Many of my friends worked as kids in paper factories. Things as Baff1 describe, they were the richest kids in school.

But the socialists attitude hates such kids, because in one day they will be independent and wouldn't need that free lunch fairy tale told by the goverment to "protect" and "help" them. Those kids, wich worked for their money, were more independent and smart and diligent than the most "adults" nowadays.

And especialy adults grown up in welfare states are fucked up losers which couldn't do anything by themself, what makes them dependent from the government. And they hate everyone whos independent and can care for himself, they hate them because it shows them their own weakness.

Is that the reason why you hate free enterprise, because you never get something done by yourself?

[Hans Ludwig 0]

If I understand you correctly, then this is the perfect example of why we need governments to regulate the market, working conditions and human rights for everyone, or soon we would have kids working in factories again, a barbarian idea isn’t it? Sadly this still goes on today in 3rd world countries where the governments only role is to make sure that corporations get their money

How's that worked out so far?

No factory would ever hire anyone younger than 16. Why? Helloooo! Can you say liability?

Edited October 3, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[*LK1* 10]

Sadly, you don't know what democracy and freedom are.

sound like the voice of an owner, or just a troll.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

Do they have property rights in those countrys? No, they have planned economy where monopolies controll the market by law and law enforcers on goverments payroll. Thats the model socialists want to install in the western world to keep everyone in controll.

yes in most of the third counties they dont have planned economies and they have property rights. hello communism is just a memory, except fora few countries.. are you a republican and red neck at the same time or what?

is not the property rights that will brings more richness to the people of the third countries... is just a bit of controlled economy and liberalism, as happens in many countries. because the capitalism as you might know, which is just a synonimus of anarchic economy, is 1 of the main reason for example to explain why south-america is still poor as it is.

because there are many companies that works there which they are more rich than the government itself...and they want things keep going in this way. pure capitalism will eat your rights with the excuse of the economical situation. but i guess you are to much tv brainwashed petty bourgeois, to understand it.

i was especting that. the riot( ops not yet) the manifestations are confused with proof of anarchy and vandalism. and im not talking especially of this forum but more in general.

---------- Post added at 07:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ----------

I worked in a factory when I was kid.

I worked in a couple of factories, also a shop and I had a paper round (sometimes two).

It might sound like a barbarian idea to you, but I quite enjoyed being the richest kid in school.

It's quite important to remember what sort of society we are discussing. In a country where poverty = starvation and death, the ability for a child to work is the difference between life and death perhaps.

Do you really wish to take those kids jobs away from them?

Are you able to offer them something better if you do?

you might are forgetting that there is, as always, a middle way you can walk on, between the "ei lets go there and give them some gramm of rice for 12 hours of works and "ei lets go there and lets give them 2000 bucks like in europe". there is the third opportunity. lets give to them 300/400 dollars so they could buy rice and a book maybe...at the end of the mounth.

the companies clearly know that. they clearly can afford to spend more in salaries since investing in the third world still remunerative even if you have to raise the salaries of 2/3 hundreas dollars each years. but "ehi why we should do that, we are already giving them the opportunity to eat, isn't enough for such nations?". what is not acceptable is when some of these CEO feels like saviors and missionaries while they are doing their business. but i guess you can't ask to a snake to think like an elephant, isn't it? money money..without ethics. ethics and business have never been so far as now. and that's why most of the companies working on the third world dont want to listen and to open their eyes on this third way.

keep in mind you are not living in the middle between to extrem situations.

you live inside and extremization that won against another 1, that happened 20 years ago. capitalism and communism are 2 extremizations. and casually what borned as a soon of the 2 things is the best political/government solution we can have: social-democracy. 1 of the main reason why most of the nordic countries are so advanced and civilizated. not only by an economic point of view.

Edited October 3, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[dysta 10]

I don't think the two previous pages of discussions in this topic are in-line with the NYC WAR-street event at all. The -ism conversation isn't ending here, so better let the admin pay attention of it.

[hellfire257 3]

And especialy adults grown up in welfare states are fucked up losers which couldn't do anything by themself

Where is your proof for that? It just sounds like a malicious attack to me. If I had my way there wouldn't be any political threads here because people can't refrain from insulting others over their differing beliefs. These threads always seem to bring out the worst in people. Just look how many bans have been sent out over political threads.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Hellfire257

[Baff1 0]

you might are forgetting that there is, as always, a middle way you can walk on, between the "ei lets go there and give them some gramm of rice for 12 hours of works and "ei lets go there and lets give them 2000 bucks like in europe". there is the third opportunity. lets give to them 300/400 dollars so they could buy rice and a book maybe...at the end of the mounth.

300/400 dollars a month is more than I usually earn.

No one is preventing you from employing children in return for 300 or 400 dollars a month. (Unless you live in Europe or America etc).

Anyone who wants to do this already can as long as they do so in a deregulated area.

The average wage is $60 a month?

So you could choose to pay children 5 or 6 times the average wage, but if you did, then customers like me might get priced out of your market and a rival factory may undercut you, usurping your business.

So it is quite possible that if you choose to pay kids $300/400, that the job you offer them will be an unsustainable job. And pretty soon the kids you hired will be unemployed and kids hired at the more sustainable average monthly wage, will still be employed elsewhere.

In the end, market forces define the size of peoples wage packets.

You can't just arbitarily pick a number that you think sounds decent.

Or at least you can... but not necessarily for very long.

With regards to the Nordic countries, they are like those Arab states I thought. Oil rich.

They aren't going to have to worry about the same things as the rest of us until it runs out.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

No factory would ever hire anyone younger than 16. Why? Helloooo! Can you say liability?

You hire them for two hours a day after school.

They have an abundance of energy and will work harder than any adult for those 2 hours.

When they start flagging you send them home.

They do more work than adults in those 2 hours, so you pay them more money than the adults.

They will be pleased for the work, they will full on slog their guts out for you.

After two hours, send them home.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Baff1

[gammadust 12]

Where is your proof for that? It just sounds like a malicious attack to me. If I had my way there wouldn't be any political threads here because people can't refrain from insulting others over their differing beliefs. These threads always seem to bring out the worst in people. Just look how many bans have been sent out over political threads.

Agree that it constituted a mallicious attack. Just ignore it as best as you can, it is hard I know.

But I disagree on the second part. People who choose to break forum rules and be banned as a consequence do it by their own accord. To prive the well behaved ones of the important discussions that may occur because of that is not, imo, the way to go.

Political discussion is intimately related with what is happening with Wall Street Occupation movement. I have as my own belief that one of the reasons that allowed "politicians" to get away with selling themselves out to corporations instead of serving their constituency is precisely because of lack of political discussion, its economical underlinings, and social impacts.

That discussion brings about awareness of the issues involved and allows one to better face against what is being imposed on the most affected by politics.

[Baff1 0]

I have as my own belief that one of the reasons that allowed "politicians" to get away with selling themselves out to corporations instead of serving their constituency is precisely because of lack of political discussion, its economical underlinings, and social impacts.

Corporations are part of their constituency.

Why would anyone favour a bunch of nihilists in their constituency over a bunch of highly productive people?

What would be the social and economic impact of that?

[gammadust 12]

Corporations are part of their constituency.

Why would anyone favour a bunch of nihilists in their constituency over a bunch of highly productive people?

What would be the social and economic impact of that?

Very much correct. "Politicians" favour a minority of their constituency because they are criminaly paid to do so. Why they do that I think is obvious, why they fail to have any hint of an idea their job is all about is something we all should denounce, and demonstrate agains... by going to Liberty Park, for instance.

I would claim that the economic and social impact of that would be the maintenance of a much better and balanced status quo.

[ProfTournesol 956]

There is no such thing as a "regulation power" in a capitalist society, to say it exaggerated. If the Goverment "regulates", it protects monopolies and the result are more laws and regulations and prohibitions for the rest of the people. Thats some kind of planed economy.

Well, that's way too simplistic. Monopolies and oligopolies happen most of the time without any state intervention, as the result of the market competition, when companies have grown to the point that other competitors have disappeared or have been bought. Even defendors of the liberalism theories acknowledge this fact, because on a competitive market, profit tends to disappear because it is shared by a great amount of companies. Then, governement must intervene to defend market economy and free competition.

No! Thats why its called "law of the market" and not "law of the lawenforcers".

There is just one law: Don't steal. Working Power is property. Live is property. Your own property and no one has a right to gain something from what you earned. Thats Capitalism, thats the right to own and trade. Thats freedome. Everything else will slowly or fast lead to slavery.

To make it short, freedom doesn't exist in the jungle, but the survival of the fittest. Maybe you should read Thomas Hobbes, and thus understand that without laws, at the state of nature, the human is in a perpetual state of war. "Man is a wolf to man". The law of the market is the same : it needs regulations and law enforcements to defend the free competition on the markets.

The only question is how much the State can intervene in the market economy. And the answer is far from being simple.

[weaponsfree 46]

If all the state does is protect private property, it can only lead to increased concentration of power and eventually violence from the public. There is no difference between a government that uses its power to protect its interests, and private property owners using their power to protect their interests. Both are dangerous. As far as I am concerned, government is not a private security company for the rich, smart and ambitious.

If you want a society that doesn't eventually overthrow itself, there must be a social contract that addresses the fate of the weak and non-predatory members of society. As shocking as it may be, there are people who don't live to accumulate power and wealth (or be "productive"). Some of these so-called "leeches" just want help others for low pay, some want to build the unmarketable unprofitable CERN collider and learn about the unknown, some just don't want to work 8 hours a day and others are mentally or physically challenged.

This Ayn Rand ideology that pits productive members of society against "leeches" is a fantasy. Her father's pharmacy is stolen by Bolshevik criminal thugs, and she goes on a lifelong mission to imagine a caste system for the modern world. The caste system in India is designed to make sure the most powerful feel guilt free about the fate of the untouchables (it's their own fault). As far as I can tell, this modern proposed libertarian caste system is no different (except that a Harijan can become a Vaishya and vice versa).

What's even more insane is that the current welfare state system ensures the weak and powerless have some form of recourse, and yet there are millionaires and billionaires. There are billionaires in Canada, there are millionaires in Sweden. There is recourse for the "productive" members of society to accumulate wealth well beyond the contribution they offer to society. And yet, it's not enough for Ayn Rand's followers. Mind boggling.

Edited October 3, 2011 by WeaponsFree

[*LK1* 10]

300/400 dollars a month is more than I usually earn.

2 possibilites: or you failed job or your country failed. dont joke with that. i clrealy was spoken of 8 hours of work not half time or whatever. if you still get 400 dollars each mounth and you live in england...there's a problem.

No one is preventing you from employing children in return for 300 or 400 dollars a month.

i know.

The average wage is $60 a month?

So you could choose to pay children 5 or 6 times the average wage, but if you did, then customers like me might get priced out of your market and a rival factory may undercut you, usurping your business.

So it is quite possible that if you choose to pay kids $300/400, that the job you offer them will be an unsustainable job. And pretty soon the kids you hired will be unemployed and kids hired at the more sustainable average monthly wage, will still be employed elsewhere.

In the end, market forces define the size of peoples wage packets.

You can't just arbitarily pick a number that you think sounds decent.

Or at least you can... but not necessarily for very long.

well this is not automatic and unavoidable as you seem to think but basically i agree. im not so ingenous to dont understand this point. the problem is the globalization and the lack of rules.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

And especialy adults grown up in welfare states are fucked up losers which couldn't do anything by themself,

you indirectly said loser to all of the europe, do you realize that? seriusly where you from?

oh plz dont is sooo clear. good thx i borned in a different area.

i call him civilization you might call him typical european weakness. until you dont realize in which era we live. this far west "we born and we live alone bro" mentality is anachronistic.

Edited October 3, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[HyperU2 11]

Looks like the airsoft community is showing their support.