• If Trump Wins - Martin Shkreli will release unheard Wu Tang, Beatles, and Nirvana songs for FREE
    174 replies, posted
[QUOTE=patq911;51274034]I've watched his livestream and he's very smart when he's not being a sarcastic troll. He's not evil, but he feels he needs to be that way because there's no way to "redeem" himself. all in all he's a very interesting person.[/QUOTE] Smart enough to build his personal wealth on the backs of others, boasting about the how the suffering he caused the entire way was worth it for the ~bottom line~ Misdirecting people from all the damage he's done with his no holds barred language and flamboyant character. Convincing idiots he's a paragon of business because he knows when to jump ship. Don't mind that he's been intentionally sinking them all along for over a decade. It's not extortion, it's business baby! I'm not even sure whether I'm talking about Shkreli or Trump anymore. It's hard to keep them separate when the only difference is Shkreli isn't a hairless orange sexual predator.
Should be illegal.
[QUOTE=Talvy;51274378]Should be illegal.[/QUOTE] He brought them, he can do whatever he wishes.
So many people I know who never really listened to wu-tang suddenly care way too much about their unreleased tracks.
He won't release it if Trump wins and I'm convinced that he won't destroy it if he loses In either case, fuck this guy, let him destroy it lmao. I hope he's dumb enough to back it up on a computer that gets compromised and it ends up getting leaked [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] Or itd be funny if WuTang heard he destroyed it and made another copy and auctioned it again just as a massive "fuck you" :v:
[QUOTE=Sipeone;51273435]Whether or not it's shit that Wu album needs to be heard.[/QUOTE] Not at the cost of Trump for 4 years.
Couldn't care less about the Beatles or Nirvana, there's so much content that's "unreleased" and it's because it blows, there's a reason it wasn't put out there
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51274263]Smart enough to build his personal wealth on the backs of others, boasting about the how the suffering he caused the entire way was worth it for the ~bottom line~ Misdirecting people from all the damage he's done with his no holds barred language and flamboyant character. Convincing idiots he's a paragon of business because he knows when to jump ship. Don't mind that he's been intentionally sinking them all along for over a decade. It's not extortion, it's business baby! I'm not even sure whether I'm talking about Shkreli or Trump anymore. It's hard to keep them separate when the only difference is Shkreli isn't a hairless orange sexual predator.[/QUOTE] Martin Shkreli isn't evil, he just doesn't care if malaria and aids victims die because [quote=Martin Shkreli]If you have a drug that is $100 for one course of therapy, and you know that you can charge $100,000, what should shareholders think when you say, ‘I’d rather not take the heat’?[/quote] [quote=Martin Shkreli]My whole life has been one theme of self-sacrifice[/quote]
[QUOTE=ccg;51274405]He bought them, he can do whatever he wishes.[/QUOTE] Historical items should be protected against pointless destruction.
trump better win.. i want some good clan gems. murrica can be sorted out l8er.
[QUOTE=Talvy;51274755]Historical items should be protected against pointless destruction.[/QUOTE] Poor argument when it comes to stuff sold by the creator itself
[QUOTE=Talvy;51274755]Historical items should be protected against pointless destruction.[/QUOTE] It's not really historical. WuTang intentionally made one copy of this album. Even if there wasn't a way to make another if it was destroyed, he paid for it, he has the right to blow his money however he feels [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;51274770]find a person who needed daraprim that wasnt able to afford it because of shkreli you wont, because his company made sure to make insurers make the patient pay the same price from before as well as stock hospitals with more to use on the spot for much cheaper than the insurance price but hey, everyone wants a bad guy shkreli is just a silly internet troll these days[/QUOTE] So it's okay if he's only fucking the people that don't have insurance, then, that makes sense
[QUOTE=Talvy;51274755]Historical items should be protected against pointless destruction.[/QUOTE] 1. yeah fuck that shit he aint got no beatles nor nirvana 2. he's a pussy of an attention whore
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51274612]Martin Shkreli isn't evil, he just doesn't care if malaria and aids victims die because [QUOTE]My whole life has been one theme of self-sacrifice[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] I want him to tell his self sacrifice sob story to someone who is dying because they threw themselves into danger for someone else
Come back to me when you offer to release Music for Supermarkets, Shkreli.
I saw this tweet, but I assumed it was just a troll. How would he even gain possession of the Nirvana and Beatles alumbs in the first place, if there even were any.
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;51274247]add all of boc's unreleased tracks and i'm coming over to get my citizenship and vote within the next 24 hours[/QUOTE] Now I'm curious, BOC as in Blue Oyster Cult? What unreleased tracks? BOC are my favorite band, I would love to hear more of them (I wish Spotify would put Heaven Forbid on their service)
[QUOTE=HumbleTH;51275036]I saw this tweet, but I assumed it was just a troll. How would he even gain possession of the Nirvana and Beatles alumbs in the first place, if there even were any.[/QUOTE] Private auctions for rich people? Rich people own a lot of unimaginable shit.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51275221]Now I'm curious, BOC as in Blue Oyster Cult? [b]What unreleased tracks?[/b] BOC are my favorite band, I would love to hear more of them (I wish Spotify would put Heaven Forbid on their service)[/QUOTE] Exactly :shh:
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51275228]Private auctions for rich people? Rich people own a lot of unimaginable shit.[/QUOTE] im pretty sure dave grohl would say something about this kinda shit
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51275238]im pretty sure dave grohl would say something about this kinda shit[/QUOTE] Im not sure why you think he would, nor what he would say about it.
[QUOTE=Talvy;51274378]Should be illegal.[/QUOTE] It should be illegal to choose whether or not to release something that you have full ownership of?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51275404]Im not sure why you think he would, nor what he would say about it.[/QUOTE] lol do you even know who dave grohl is
[QUOTE=RichyZ;51274770]find a person who needed daraprim that wasnt able to afford it because of shkreli you wont, because his company made sure to make insurers make the patient pay the same price from before as well as stock hospitals with more to use on the spot for much cheaper than the insurance price but hey, everyone wants a bad guy shkreli is just a silly internet troll these days[/QUOTE] which was all 100% backpedaling. the hospital stocking changes among other things got rolled out a good bit later too so they really paid out the ass until sometime 2016. this is shkreli's bread and butter: first it was literally fraud and insider trading. then using the assets from that he two separate times as CEO convinced everyone to get on board with apparently financially sound but actually ethically horrible decisions like the unfeeling bastard he is all, then abandoned ship in such a way that he profited and retained the assets for future use. he's been running the same game for a decade and was even setting himself up to do it again. pretty hard evidence that at least one alien [I]has[/I] come to earth: a ferengi they recognized how much he fucked them PR wise and undid the damage by not putting things back the way they were, but just shifting the costs around to be hidden from patients. like what about how this and other hikes affect healthcare costs in the long run? hospitals are still having to pay substantially more and more as are insurance providers. how can continual drug cost hikes not affect the bottom of the chain (patients) by companies simply making insurance and hospitals pay more? where is any kind of regulation being used to prevent pharmaceutical companies and insurers from just continually driving up prices? we have seen unprecedented greed and wastefulness from pharma/insurance companies in a battle of optimizing profit at the expense of the people they are supposed to be healing. but nothing substantial has happened. there is no accountability or regard for the long term effects of the price gouging, hyper inflated turn for the worst that our entire healthcare industry has gone. all we've seen is a few decades of half assed justifications for hardly concealed price gouging. oh and a government where an entire party probably legitimately believe this is the way God intended the world to function or would most likely happily kill themselves to ensure it stayed the same before you could say "conflict of interest". but hardly any progress has been or likely will be made anytime soon, because half of the population got duped into earnestly thinking that [I]I Can't Believe It's Not Crony Capitalism®[/I] is the best you can do with healthcare or worse yet shout "its a handout and what are taxes for anyways" ad nauseum. 12 dollars for the ketchup cup your pills come in. [del]40 dollars to touch your newborn baby to your skin[/del]. another day goes by with everything in its proper place:)
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51275221]Now I'm curious, BOC as in Blue Oyster Cult? What unreleased tracks? BOC are my favorite band, I would love to hear more of them (I wish Spotify would put Heaven Forbid on their service)[/QUOTE] Boards of Canada
it appears so naive to me to handwave price hikes as not affecting a consumer just because there's a middle man. [B]or not recognize how industry executives get away with using the fucking "what the market will bear" argument for life saving or enabling drugs. the market will bear what you tell them to because otherwise they could die.[/B]
[QUOTE=Hanso;51273595]Are a lot of people willing to screw themselves over to hear some songs? Whoever owns the rights to the music for these bands should release the tracks just to nullify this guy's bullshit.[/QUOTE] That's the thing. He bought the rights to the albums from the artists so only he could listen to them. He's that vain.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51275502] 12 dollars for the ketchup cup your pills come in. [B]40 dollars to touch your newborn baby to your skin. [/B]another day goes by with everything in its proper place:)[/QUOTE] this is the only part i'm going to comment on that picture that frontpaged on reddit was not "being billed for skin to skin contact" the billing code of the birth changes once skin to skin contact begins. you're not so much being charged for skin to skin contact, as the chart being updated to record skin to skin contact
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51275866]this is the only part i'm going to comment on that picture that frontpaged on reddit was not "being billed for skin to skin contact" the billing code of the birth changes once skin to skin contact begins. you're not so much being charged for skin to skin contact, as the chart being updated to record skin to skin contact[/QUOTE] And due to issues with neonates and protecting the rest of the babies in general, keeping track of any exposure any child has received whatsoever is really common. Totally sensationalist entry, but hey its reddit what can you expect
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51275866]this is the only part i'm going to comment on that picture that frontpaged on reddit was not "being billed for skin to skin contact" the billing code of the birth changes once skin to skin contact begins. you're not so much being charged for skin to skin contact, as the chart being updated to record skin to skin contact[/QUOTE] You may know more about that ordeal than I and if I'm wrong, oops. If I'm doubling down on being wrong in this post, double oops. I don't use reddit tho, just heard about it in the news lol What [I]I[/I] had read (and triple checked on further) before posting my cheeky one-liner was not some billing code change that happens because of simply the "chart being updated". I honestly don't totally understand what you mean here either and would appreciate elaboration, being fortunate enough never to get a hospital bill other than over a small burn that's not something I have intimate knowledge of. Anyways. I had read from multiple sources that [I]the hospital themselves[/I] said the charge was because a csec takes a big toll on the body and thus one nurse was busy with the mother. When the father wanted to hold the baby they need to pull another nurse in to oversee. Seems to elaborate on but not fundamentally change the original claim. I wanted a solid example of where our healthcare system has been so derailed and fucked up reaching for justifiations to tack on another charge. I feel that pulling in a nurse for a few minutes to watch over you hold your child because your wife required a c-section costs $40 qualifies. Maybe there's a really good and valid reason that I'm not aware of or can find for why an hourly employee assisting someone for a bit is justifiable grounds for charging that individual as if the nurse had a small consulting gig on the side. From what I've been able to absorb though it's still a wonderful example of the charging-for-sauce-packets-at-the-drive-thru ideology that our healthcare's grown to represent for most people; except with potentially life or death consequences. I would have liked to learn more about reasons why this is billable but couldn't find anything else. Someone who knows more about this, please share your knowledge. Like where is the line drawn? Every time two nurses need to be in the same room are people gonna get their wallets reamed? [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=paindoc;51276148]And due to issues with neonates and protecting the rest of the babies in general, keeping track of any exposure any child has received whatsoever is really common.[/QUOTE] [del]Is this the answer?[/del] TLDR, Edit: Reading even more the nurse suggested skin to skin contact to the couple. Since they're in the OR post csec they need another nurse in the room to offer the expertise and care to make sure everythings gravy. Somehow after the fact though they can just hit the patient with a bill for an idea they gave them without informing them of its cost. These types of surprise hospital billings aren't uncommon at all and have far reaching implications. It's a literal slippery slope in action.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.