Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "The B1M" channel.

Then why is it a generic skyscraper with an antenna on top? No one would call that daring or a middle finger to anything.
33
What's obscene? They did stuff other people wanted and so they got a lot of money in return. Good for them.
11
@wobby1516 I definitely begrudge them much and their tactics do ill to other enterprises as well. But at least Elon and Jeff don't take stuff from me by force and then waste it for nothing like the government does. I can decide whether I want to buy a Tesla and I can get stuff delivered to my house from a myriad of other online shops.
4
@jramseier Who is starving? Who is starving in the West? Only thing that comes to my mind is Venezuela - people starving as a direct result of socialist policies.
3
They can only be an investment if you think that someone eventually wants to live in them.
3
It is ugly and it should be an eye-catcher for symbolic reasons. They should at least try to finish the spire.
3
@HelpICantThinkOfACleverName Well this building wears an antenna as a hat.
3
Bullshit. There's plenty of houses completely empty. When people can't "afford rent" that means they want to live somewhere where a lot of people want to live. Naturally such a place becomes more expensive. Now your solution is to give extra money to the places people already want to live and take it from the places with empty houses.
2
@blushdog Yeah the government should tell you where you live. Like in the middle ages.
2
@EmyrDerfel Look at literally any larger skyscraper in China. Every single one is better than this one. They should at least do sth with the top if tgey can't get the original spire on there.
2
With cool you mean ugly? That's called aliasing and it's a problem with digital images.
2
I thought they just rebuilt them every time.
2
I'm kind of glad the terrorists removed those ugly twin towers.
1
Absolute bullshit. There's huge social housing projects everywhere. Also there's plenty of empty houses outside of city centers. You are taking the resources from places with empty houses with force and pumping it into already popular places. And you don't see how this will lead to those places always staying expensive.
1
Aye, but this way you and your car can sleep next to each other.
1
They do. And why "instead"? Luxury homes often PAY FOR cheap housing.
1
@TheLaXandro Affordable housing is profitable. But offering housing far underneath market prices isn't. The problem is that people want to live in inner cities far below market prices. And the government and corporations conspire to pump resources into inner cities.
1
This is very affordable for billionaires. Why do all houses need to be for poor people?
1
@ironwoodnf You clearly don't comprehend when "understatement" is appropriate since this building was specifically a response to 9/11 and built to a symbolic height.
1
@tropicalpalmtree The twin towers were much worse. Literally boxes and two identical ones. That's pretty much the worst design you could come up with.
1
@mrandrossguy9871 They were literally the same rectangular prism twice.
1
@blastofo People simply don't think even one step ahead. The city is attractive, it becomes expensive. If you now artificially lower the expense, that just means it will become even more attractive. People are unwilling to let a city become less attractive.
1
If the attackers care about architecture that is. That generic skyscraper wearing an antenna as a hat to appear larger is really a middle finger to anyone, who cares.
1
If you envy the rich specifically, you probably already have it very good compared to others. What system? Some people have more and therefore they are given more. That's not a system, that's just nature.
1
I'm far more pompous than that. My car has its very own house next to my house.
1
Can't wait to see the third building that will straddle the second.
1