Disqus - Latest Comments for Erick

Re: Record label boss blasts RIAA tactics

Erick — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:21:22 -0000

Considering that most artists (read...major label artists) actually get their songs from songwriters and there are only a handful of good songwriters currently working for labels...it's no wonder that the music is cookie cutter. You've got the same guy writing material for 10 different artists. You can only squeeze out so much water from a sponge before filling it up again.

Re: Sirius Dropping Revolution

Erick — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:13:03 -0000

I agree. The real question is...are there enough Sirius subscribers listening that will drop their subscription if Sirius doesn't put Revolution back? That will definitely make them sit up and listen.
Money trumps everything and where the money goes...so do the hearts of American corporations.

Re: Death of DRM?

Erick — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:19:11 -0000

You're right...but the culmination of his comments and others like it will be the WD-40 that loosens the gears and starts the machine.
I'd like to see a study done to give these people hard facts that DRM sucks...haha.

Re: Jermaine Dupri is an Idiot

Erick — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:42:35 -0000

I agree. The problem with our society as a whole is that if we don't like something, we try to make everyone else's life suck for it. We try to make the world a better place for ourselves with no regard for anyone else. They have a term for that called "selfish". Learned that one in kindergarten.

Sure there are artists who could benefit and be more in control of their music if it stayed as an album instead of singles, but if you don't like iTunes, don't threaten them...go somewhere else. Then come back and talk to them about adding that extra service into their system. This is still America and every business still reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They know their business better than anyone else and how it will run best...they pay people to do that thinking for them.

Good article!!

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

Erick — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:13:26 -0000

To your footnote: There are more than 2 candidates...however since most people are uninformed or uneducated about the candidates (other than what MSNBC, Fox and CNN report), they will not even consider what else is out there...and with A LOT of people dissatisfied with the "2 evils", you would think this would be the year that someone other than an R or D is voted into office.

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

Erick — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:37:07 -0000

I've been reading these posts for quite a bit and I have to say that I see some things missing and it's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of the people.

1. Political Complacency - People as a majority have really just stopped caring about their government or don't make it a priority to learn what is going on at the local, state or federal level. When this year could possibly produce a 50% voter turnout...is that really helping to create a gov't for the people, by the people? The opinions of the minority (meaning...less than a majority of the US Population...not meaning minority races) are still controlling the lives of the majority. If the country goes to hell in a handbasket...it's our own damn fault.

2. People should be helping people. The principles of Christianity (whether you believe or not) is built around loving and helping people. The only 2 commandments that Jesus said we should keep is "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".
Now considering that 85% of Americans consider themselves "Christian" we've got 1 of 2 things going on...either they are Christian and they aren't following the commands of Christ, or they are lying to themselves and think that because they go to church on Sunday, they're a Christian (which couldn't be further from the truth). If it's the former, then the problem lies with the people for not living their faith. If it's the latter, then the problem lies with the people in thinking it's the gov't responsibility to help clothe, feed, medicate and educate people. None of those things are guaranteed in the Constitution (last time I checked).

So all that to say that really the blame lies in the people, not the gov't (although power hungry politicians on both sides of the aisle are not exactly helping the situation any). The solution to any of our problems is not in what the gov't is or isn't going to do...but its the responsibility of the people to grow up and act their age, be responsible for themselves first and then with their own abundance on their own accord, help others who are helping themselves and just can't make it.

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

Erick — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:16:55 -0000

Linda, you're right...my taxes won't be affected because I actually make less than $100,000 a year. However, as a small business owner I do have a vendor that makes about $1.5 million a year in his business (silk screen printing) and he will be taxed by Obama's tax plan...both on his corporate taxes and probably his personal taxes.

He is like MOST every other American, in that his lifestyle is reflected by his income, and he isn't going to be able to squeeze more tax into his profit margin (I know because I have seen his numbers...almost bought his business). If he takes a personal paycut in order to keep more profit in the business, then he may not be able to pay for the commitments he already has (mortgage, car note, etc). He could let someone go in his company, but seeing as he's a loyal employer...he'll hold on to everyone that he can for as long as he can. His only other option is to raise prices. You know what this means don't you. Instead of paying $5.00 per printed shirt, I'll be paying $6.00, which means my customers will be paying $10 instead of $9 and that could mean the difference between selling them 72 shirts and 144 shirts, which means less money in my pocket, thus lower income. Of course I could keep my prices the same, but then I am making less profit in my company.

Effectively, Obama's tax plan has just affected me (indirectly) and it did take money out of my pocket.
This scenario is no different than speeding 5 mph over the speed limit. Most people would think that's stupid because after an hour of travel, you're only 5 miles ahead of your counterpart going the speed limit. But let's run through the fact that you being 5 mph faster allowed you to catch a green light instead of red. Now you're NOT waiting for another 1 minute for the rotation of the light to turn green so you can go. That 1 minute delay means you are now behind an accident and have to wait 30 minutes for it to clear, vs. your 5 mph faster counterpart who missed the accident by 30 seconds and made the meeting on time. If all variables are the same except the fact that you're going 5 mph faster, then no harm done and you got to your destination about 1 minute sooner (whoop te doo), the opposite however is devastating to your commitment to your destination. All that to say that while you were not involved in the accident nor did you ever break the law (you did the speed limit, you stopped at red lights, etc), you were still a victim of cause and effect.

Cause and effect will trickle down and in the end those at the bottom will still be hit by things that happen at the top. So I would reconsider your argument of "...your taxes won't be affected if Obama is elected unless you and your wife make more than $250,000 annually...", because while the actual TAXES may not be affected, other aspects of my life WILL be affected...you can bet on that.

Maybe you can help me understand something too...if 70-90% of Americans were against the bailout, why did it pass? Are the people in Congress supposed to represent us? By passing that, did they NOT represent us properly? Just curious if you know the answer to that...or have an idea?

Re: Olbermann Kind of Misses the Point

Erick — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:04:02 -0000

Good Article. I read the Olbermann content and I thought he had some good points, but he just sounded angry and no one wants to talk to angry people because they can't be reasoned with. It's their way or the highway (or so it's always seemed to me).

With that being said, I agree with the author here in saying we do have voting and if we want to keep people from being disenfranchised, we need to follow the ideas of the founding fathers, even if it means it takes a bit longer. My proof to back up my argument in this debate is simply the fact that this past election day, my town finally passed a measure to allow liquor stores in town. This measure finally passed after failing in 1999 and again 2006. The point is that if it fails now, simply get it put on the next ballot...and you keep doing it until you get it where you want it.

Really in a perfect world, if we would've listened to VERY smart men like Thomas Jefferson who said, "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits," we'd be much better off.
If this would've been adhered to, then we wouldn't have had to free the slaves or allow women to vote or give blacks equal rights because they would've had them from the get go. Of course, then Keith Olbermann wouldn't be ranting about the rights of gays to marry because they would have it.

My point is that voting is the one power we as individuals have over our government and the idea is that since you can't please all the people all the time, you should try to please most of the people most of the time (majority rules). If you don't think the results of a given vote are wrong, then you should get out and logically and rationally educate people why they need to see your POV and why it's better for the majority.

But that's just my 2 cents...

Re: A Conservative in an Ever Growing Liberal World

Erick — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:00:29 -0000

You say...
"I wonder what it would take to get us back to a society where we honor the hard worker, shun the free loader, and don’t look at the successful as some kind of disease that should be punished and oppressed. What will it take to get us to a point where we are understanding but not to the point it is a detriment on society. When will we stop indulging the criminals? How do we get back to not looking for someone else to blame for our misfortune or our deeds. "

Two words...Nuclear war.
It's sad to say, but we as humans will never think something is important until what we value most is pushed to the brink of destruction. One will not admit they have an addiction to porn until their marriage is almost destroyed (assuming their marriage is that important to them). One will not admit they have a drinking problem until they are diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver and have 6 months to live (assuming their life is that precious to them).
It is not until humans hit the bottom of the barrel will they pick themselves up and make a change. What they cherish most needs to be threatened and then and only then will they make a change. Sometimes a reset is all you need when a system has gotten completely out of control.