Alienware at select EB Games locations - Page 2

i dont' think it's that surprising that they're not being displayed in the chicagoland area. This place is overrun by best buys

Definately not top 28 ---- I live in Portland and the Business done at Lloyd Center is superior to the business done at Washingon Square --- the difference is that Lloyd Center is a less 'afluent' area in comparison to that of Washington Square. That is the area where you find some of the Portland Trail Blazers living if you catch my drift.

jail blazers suck. Why can't our state have at least one real professional sports team. We could not even keep a womens' basketball team. If you are a vegan type, you probably have been one of those protestors at Pioneer Courthouse Square who whine about everything.

eat meat, it tastes good.

No --- I don't protest anything --- it doesn't accomplish much.

Plus I have been living in AZ for the past four years --- I will be moving back in May.

I'm going to San Antonio and Austin during Christmas break! Alienware testing time...what what...

The smart part of Oregon resides outside or Portland. Just look at the election results. Portland = Liberal, rest of Oregon (except People's Republic of Eugene) = Conservative

Because being close minded and ignorant does translate into smart...

Not wanted the government to rape me more by taking more of my money (via taxes) is closed minded and ignorant . . .right. More money to the goverment means less money for Alienware. That is just not American. Are you just unhappy we wrote marriage = 1 man and 1 woman. I guess you would prefer 1 man and 1 sheep?

...anyway. I think AW at EB is a stupid idea. 9/10 of the people that even walk in that store go there for consol games and use their PC for stuff AIM and internet. I can picture reactions like "hey look that laptop is blue...cool i guess." and thats about it.

EB = ghey

yeah, the nerds in there think they know what they are talking about. they price new hot games at almost 60 bucks. they give SHIT for tradeins, (20 bucks for a PS2? WTF?) EB can go to hell. Amazon.com for my pc games, UT2004 for 25 bucks? half-life2 for $35 (last week)?? frickn sweet

Darth --- I study politics. I won't waste my breath with you.

Just consider this for right now --- we are creating deferred tax liabilities right now --- these tax cuts are temporary and they are putting us in a position where 70% taxes across the board may become a reality a lot sooner than you might expect --- like within the next 5-10 years.

When you spend way beyond your means ---- and you reduce your revenue --- what this ultra conservative administration is doing currently ---- it puts you a world of hurt. We will all feel the consequences at some point.

Oh yes, and one more thing. Bush a man investigated by the SEC for insider trading along with his corporate chronies in the whitehouse wants to privatize social security! The only reason he got off the last time he was investigated by the SEC was becuase his daddy was the president at the time. Read a book. Can you imagine what these crooks would do if ss was privatized? Jesus christ. I don't trust my government either, but I sure as hell don't trust corporations, and that is who is in charge right now. For the second time in a row they decided the election --- jesus shit.

I was a business major budrow (took econ, finance, accounting, etc, and yes I did graduate). We have been in a deficit before (but then you are too young to remember the Cold War) and we are there now, we will pull ourselves out, and we will probably be there again. The fact is tax cuts for corporations (and especially small businesses as they drive our economy) equal captiol invenstment. This investment spurs job growth. I know because my wife and I run a small business. Your darling Kerry wanted to raise our taxes beyond the 50 % or so that we currently pay out. That is bullshit to the highest degree.

I don't care for Bush. I just care for my bottom line. Nice line of study (politics). I hope you will not be another leech like politicians (suckling the nipples of our tax dollars) and lawyers.

A little harsh there, aren't we? I'm a Poli-Sci major too, graduating soon, and Zhubbard83 has a point; your statement about tax cuts = capital investment doesn't really hold true, it's very much sheer theoretics that oft doesn't materialize, or end up turning out to have certain unwanted side effects (such as sending jobs offshore, promoting job growth alright, but not here in the USA). Most of the time the tax cuts Bush gives is for the top 10-25% and we're talking about major corporations here such as Halliburton, etc. etc. It goes to the salaries of their top management and investors FIRST before returning to the company, and who knows how much of the "savings" get put into research or passed on to the consumers. Tax cuts you gain atm hurts you also considering that you're moved to a higher income bracket which has OTHER ways of grabbing money from you that isn't so obvious such as all-out business taxes. The worse part is, and I think ZHubbard83 was getting at, was that the current spending we're doing in Iraq plus privatizing Social Security and whatnot (I personally think it's a good idea to reform Social Security now, since that the baby boomer generation retiring problem is fast approaching us) is generating a VERY large bill that tax cuts are exarcebating (think Ronald Reagan and stagflation). It took us roughly 4-5 administrations to get over the deficits we racked up since Reagan's administration; do you really want your children to live under this sort of atmosphere of being a debtor nation yet again? As I recall, those times were definitely not fun. Clinton's turnaround of the economy is very much an economic miracle as is, we shouldn't be pressing our luck on hoping for our presidents to be magicians and be able to pull the same rabbit out of the hat again.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention about the huge spike in oil prices (which will definitely hurt recovery) and no giant technology breakthrough (like the internet dot-com boom) to shore up money fast. Gotta think about those variables too.

I agree with Iraq being a mistake. If you think Clinton was responsible for the boom during his presidency you need to study more. Congress wields the checkbook. The deficit was during the Regan years was caused to a large extent by the Cold War military spending. I say not being under the theat of global nuclear war is worth it (it really makes today's terrorism pale by comparison). Much of the recent recession was caused by the economic fallout of the terrorist attacks. The recession started before Bush took office. While I was in colllege (during Clinton), my ecom professors said the dot com bubble and the stock market would have to collapse and actually is what way over due. I think you weigh the positive or negative impact of any president too much. Have you worked for a Fortune 500 company? No. You are just involved in school and academia? Well that explains it. Nice arguements though. I appreciate you do think critically. I just disagree with you.

Let the feast of the Poli-Sci students/grads begin...

Now speaking as a Poli-Sci student from the only place in Canada where Bush would win, both of the sides here have good points, but it really all comes down to personal views. I have to give DB some points for saying it first that it is all up to your own way of looking at this.

Sorry to say it but i already know that while profs know alot and are undoubtedly very smart people, quoting them and what they say in a class is not such a good idea. Most profs teach from not only fact but also from personal opinion, and if your prof sees it one way that is most likely the way it will be taught to you, and the way you will view it. Thinking critically about what you are told is a good thing but you have to be careful about facts and opinions, that is one of the biggest things i have learned in my time in academia.

But i do have to say that this is a really good thing to be talking about, it shows that legitimate debate and that political thought still exists in the world. So good on you to all those who are discussing it. As well as a thank you for discussing it like mature adults.

Now go get yourselves each a good beer....

I give credit to all of your persuring a higher degree (regardless of what discipline). But do think outside of your box once in a while. You will find I am really not seated too firmly in the Republican platform. I really am more of a Libertarian. I would be glad to buy Knightdrakken and Zhubbard a beer.

Hmm, I'll go for the beer =P But just as a clarification, my study in poli-sci is mainly law, and Bush's rather "unique" views as well as those of his compatriots in the Supreme Court is more of my thing rather than the economy...plus I tend to get more into the social effects of things rather than the economics. I personally really don't think we can say that the deficit from cold war military spending in Reagan years just mysteriously disappeared off once he left office, I'm quite sure it kept going in the background in both his terms of administrations, George Bush Sr.'s, and ended roughly during Clinton's administration with the surplus. The surplus is more what I'm talking about rather than the economic boom during his administration, btw, DB, sorry if I was misleading on the matter; it might be a byproduct of the economic boom, but hey, the surplus is a matter of public of record under Clinton's administration and should be commended for. And although I seem to be crediting Clinton with a loooooot of praises, it's also because I work too, it may not be a Fortune 500 company, DB, but lots of blue collar work (yeah, white collar you need to graduate first) to supplement my income while studying. Clinton's administration you can find jobs a lot more easily than under the current Bush administration, and I think that impact can be felt more many people (esp. recently unemployed and graduating students). I agree with what you said about Clinton's dot-com boom would have to start crashing down sooner or later, but one can argue how hard and how tough the recession need be; government in most cases is the safety net of our society, ensuring that people will live through recession after that huge crisis we had called the Great Depression; when we start cutting taxes we're literally cutting the funding government has to help the average citizen ride out rough storms (in paper, I know, it depends heavily on many variables, but let's assume it's this cheery outcome). And yes, Fidget, I'm very liberally influenced, but if you study politics, I think it's always better to have compassion rather than just the bottom line, because political systems and administrations come and go, but people are the staple and foundation of any country. They should matter the most. Cheers.

Here we part ways. I think government should be there only for providing basic services like defense. I don't believe government needs to provide a safety net for everyone who fails to plan adquately. I pay well over 50 % of my household income in taxes and fees. I say that is bullshit. Why should I have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes? To pay for wellfare, pork barrel projects, and foreign aid (not to metion bullshit police actions like Iraq). If you were in the same financial sitution I am in, you would see this from a real-life perspective instead of as an abstraction. If my taxes were lower I would pay my employees more. I would probably invest more into new equipment and I might even hire an employee or two more. This is the bottom line.