You can't break the law to make money, yet. But if you, say, ship your manufacturing off to a country that where there are no environmental regulations, then you are doing right by your shareholders. If many companies start doing this, and seeing a profit, then shareholders can successfully sue companies that don't, or replace the boards.
Many people who would never think to throw trash in their neighbor's yard will, essentially, hire someone to throw trash in their neighbor's yard, and they will sleep like babies at night, believing they are good people.
Maybe I'm dense here, but how does what you said relate to what I said? Having chairs and desks are necessary to make money. Paying artists, and otherwise acting in a moral fashion is obviously not. I never said that corporations have to make the most money they can, this week, at the expense of long term profitability.
But corporations have been sued for not taking advantage when they could. Corporations are a tool for abrogation of responsibility. They let otherwise moral individuals use proxies to engage in immoral activities those individuals would never, themselves, engage in. If one man murders another, it is clear who is to blame. If a corporation does it, the corporation will not face the de3ath penalty. More than likely, it will just face a fine. Was any human even jailed for the disaster at Bhopal? No. If I poisoned thousands of people, though, I would likely be put to death. The corporate form creates immortal, immensely powerful psychopathic entities.
You mean, the way things used to be before corporate interests had the laws changed in their favor? I, for one, would love to go back to the days when corporations' scope of activities were severely limited by law.
The copyright owner's rights are being abridged by a fraudulent copyright claim from WB. Like if I showed up at your house, said I owned the place, and everyone simply agreed with me and kicked you out of your home. Please tell me you are going for some kind of rhetorical approach to a larger argument, and that you are not actually confused on the issue of whose rights are being abridged how.
The Majors are required by law to care only about shareholder profits. Any publicly traded corporation can be sued if they put anything else but the bottom line first. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders. If they use shareholder money to promote art, make music, and support artists without making money for said shareholders, they are breaching that fiduciary responsibility.
It's from the SNL skits featuring Scarlett Johansson. They are a spoof of cheap late night commercials for family run businesses, with Scarlett as the daughter, Lexi, who has a 'deer-in the-headlights, God I hope I get through this without screwing up' look on her face the entire time she's pointing to the pictures of columns or fountains or whatever and saying, woodenly, "You could buy this one. Or that one. Or this one.
I found them hilarious. I think others must have too, because googling 'marble columns' or 'porcelain fountains' returns the skits as the top hits.
Sure, skip the fountain, head down to Mike's Marbleopolis, and pick up a marble column. You could buy this one. Or that one. Or this one. (It's from a recurring series of SNL skits starring Scarlett Johansson.)
Might I suggest teak? I suppose you could go with faux finished MDF if you are on a budget, but teak is beautiful and will last forever. Then if you have any money left over, nothing says "I have arrived" like a porcelain fountain.
Idiot. You are just flat out wrong, because you listen to idiots. Obama has shown his real Hawaii birth certificate. Snopes, the debunkers of all things stupid, says you are a delusional fucking moron. Fuck off and die in a fire, you America hating traitor.
Remember, the end goal of Communism is anarchism, with direct democratic control over the means of production. The Communists see themselves as the vanguard of the new order, paving the way for direct democracy, when the people are ready for it. Which, surprise, surprise, they never seems to be.
Ideally, there should be no such thing as a politician. Working in politics should be seen as a civic duty that one performs at some point or points in one's life, like jury duty, not as a career.
There are inherent moral risks, in both business and politics, involved with allowing and encouraging a managing class. That is one major problem with the corporate form, as well as with representative democracies. How do we guarantee that these people we have appointed to oversee our interests will actually do so, and not use their power within the system to bend the system into serving their needs and not ours? With sole proprietorships and partnerships, the owners are the managers, or at least they are very close to the managers and maintain knowledge of their activities. Our current system of corporate laws has been designed to benefit the small professional managing class, and not the owners. Our current political system has been tweaked to benefit the small governing class, and not the citizens.
Capitalism and the free market would work much better without corporations, which create a moral hazard by their very structure. With our current communications systems, we could also do away with the governing class and have a direct, participatory democracy. I've heard the arguments against direct democracy, but these are usually put forth by proponents and supporters of the political class, who, like the communists, never think the people are really ready to govern themselves. A proper constitution is a better guard against the tyranny of majority than representatives are, and if we can not trust the people to make good decisions, how can we trust them to decide who will make those decisions? Either we trust people to govern themselves or we don't.
The definition you've heard for 'anarchy' is wrong. As I said, an-archy: no-ruler. Not 'no state' or 'no government.' No government would be 'anocracy.' Democratic governments can be anarchies, if there is no one imposing rules using force from above. Direct democracy, for instance, is always an anarchy.
In an anarchist system, power is exercised by the smallest possible groups, with limited areas of responsibility. Larger groups can be entered into by the will of the members of the smaller groups, but this should be voluntary, and the smaller, local groups should take precedence.
In that regard, I believe in a smaller federal government and more autonomy for states, cities and counties.
I used to live on a 300 acre farm in the back woods of West Virginia, and I loved it. Best people in the world, will give you the shirt off their back, etc. I've nothing against anyone from any locality, but it seems hypocritical when states fight for autonomy from a Federal government that is, in some cases, handing them two dollars for every dollar they pay in taxes. Each state gets two senators, no matter how big or small the state, so smaller states interests are better represented.
I've lived abroad, and seen real socialism in action. It works. People are happier and get more from their tax dollars. Most are happy to pay the higher taxes they do because they get good value for the money. However, the most successful socialist democracies have two things in common that we don't: they are culturally homogeneous, so no one feel like their tax money is going to help those 'other' people, but people just like them. They also tend to have more of a history and culture of social cooperation.
The best example of real socialism at work can be found in the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain. Fifty years ago, this was a subsistence farming region of Basque Spain. They built themselves a socialist government, inside the Spanish system, that worked for them. Picture it, everything is a cooperative, schools, housing development, businesses, everything. Each with its own membership and voting. If you want to start your own business, you are given all the help you need to do it right, cooperative business services, staffing, marketing, banking all come together to ensure that the five year failure rate for new businesses is around ten percent. The failure rate, not the success rate as it is here. There is a societal income cap, with the highest paid person making not more than fifty times what the lowest paid person makes. Look it up, it's a pretty interesting case study.
You can see exactly what we pay in taxes by comparing the budgets and deficits of all state and federal programs with GDP. You can do this with any country and get a trues sense of how much they pay in taxes. Our tax rate, as a percentage of GDP, is very, very low. Around 20-30%.
I really do mean what I said about equality of opportunity. As I mentioned, I have nothing against any of my fellow citizens. As much as I become frustrated with the collective actions of people here in America, I've met very few persons I dislike or wish any sort of harm on.
Let me tell you the difference between Anarchy and Communism. In theory, they are working towards the same end: anarchy. Did you know that? Small, local, democratic control is the aim of both Anarchy and Communism. In theory. In practice, anarchists in a communist regime get ice-picks through their heads, because they trust the citizens to do it now whereas the Communists think people need to be lead to self determination by the hand. Communists think that if we just went straight to Anarchy, the powerful would take advantage and recreate the same oppressive system we have now, because people are not ready for real self governance.
The Communist part of me sees our corporate power structure and thinks that we need something equally powerful to fight it before people can really govern themselves without re-enacting the
As I am not a liberal or a progressive, but a flat out anarchist, I take no offense in your characterizations. NOT a fucking libertarian, either, an anarchist. Means 'no rulers,' not 'no government.'
Urban states pay more in taxes, and get less in Federal funds. Backwoods southern Republican/conservative/rural states are parasites on the educated citizenry of America, taking far more in Feral funds than they pay in taxes.
While I don't think racism has been fixed in America, I think we've come a long way. Jefferson, Franklin and Henry were products of their time, and based on the standards of that time, were decidedly NOT racist. So I'd never make that claim.
Liberals and progressives have more in common with mainstream America than conservatives, libertarians, and other forms of right winger. That's why they control the executive and legislative branches right now. People want more socialism, not less.
I wouldn't raise taxes as high as they were in the fifties and sixties, 90% for the highest bracket. The Laffer Curve is a useful theory, providing accurate predictions. Raise taxes too high and you will decrease government revenues while depressing the economy. Studies show that 70% is a much more realistic high end for taxes, so yes, I would raise the highest income tax, say for anything over a quarter million, to 60-70%.
The UN? Really? Sheesh, I don't even have a response to that conspiracy, you guys still worry about the UN taking over America? One world government still terrorizing your nightmares? Sad.
I can't speak for these buttlickers (nice term, did you pull it out of your ass? Fucking Fox News and other teabagger promoters were calling them teabaggers, blissfully unaware of the sexual connotations. We just picked it up and ran with it. It isn't making fun of the teabggers themselves, but rather, the clueless hucksters promoting the 'movement') but as for me, I don't want much for myself, I just want a level playing field and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome, better effort should yield better outcomes. Just make sure that an inner city kid has the same opportunities that a young scion of a wealthy family has.
See, that's how you rebut an idiotic rant. Not by copy paste.
Money ancestors, not monkeys. We were screwing proto-monkeys, not actual monkeys. Allow me to illustrate with an amusing anecdote:
I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that odd since they were normally a couple thousand each. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.
Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.
I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.
I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.
I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.
I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.
I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.
I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.
Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.
I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.
I tried throwing them way but the garbage man said that the city wasn't allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.
I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they like them but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.
No response? You seemed so into having an actual discussion. Maybe you didn't really want a discussion? Maybe you wanted to pontificate and "win" an argument, while being unwilling to let yourself be swayed by counter-argument. That's the only thing I can assume.
You should really look through your argument and assess which of your statements apply to our current system. It really seems that you are completely okay with rationing, as long as it only applies to poor people. Don't you think that's a tad selfish?
The teabagger parties were entirely the creation of Fox News and special interest groups manipulating the frightened, disenfranchised, gullible and selfish. There were no real 'tea party protests' before Fox News began sponsoring, organizing, and advertising them.
The teabaggers might claim now to be upset with Bush, but you and I both know they all voted for him twice. Teabaggers are not some sort of maverick libertarian group. They are simple uneducated conservatives from back woods redneck states, where the remains of the Republican still hold some sort of sway.
But I can see none of this will get through your ideological defenses. You claim Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry as right wing extremists. Your opinions are demonstrably deranged, and arguing with you will get neither of us anywhere. It is quite obvious that you have already drunk the kool-aid and ordered several more crates of the stuff.
You have nothing in common with our founding fathers. The teabaggers have nothing in common with the Boston tea party. You have representation, and America's taxes are some of the lowest in the world. The teabagger's political philosophy boils down to, "I've got mine, so fuck off and leave me alone." They are childish, petulant, and selfish, not patriotic at all.
You idiots believe anything. You know the people who tell you these things are laughing at you behind your back for being so stupid as to believe them, right? I believe the phrase is "Useful idiots." That's what they think of you for buying their crap.
You are delusional. Stop listening to the morons on Faux News. They fought a court battle for their right to LIE to you, and won, look it up.
Look, if you aren't a child molester, why won't you jump through ridiculous and ever changing hoops that I set up in order to prove you aren't?
Maybe you could try to find some evidence, hmm? Something outside the right wing echo chambers? Yeah, you see, the President HAS released birth certificates and records. As I said, you are simply delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, I handle the abuse desk at a large hosting company and
I want to work at an abuse desk! Do you get to abuse everyone or only customers?
First apt based distro with ZFS? Something worthy of a post about...
I know about Nexenta, but FreeBSD has more drivers than OpenSolaris, right?
You seem to be asking some interesting questions, but fail to do so in a timely fashion.
You can't break the law to make money, yet. But if you, say, ship your manufacturing off to a country that where there are no environmental regulations, then you are doing right by your shareholders. If many companies start doing this, and seeing a profit, then shareholders can successfully sue companies that don't, or replace the boards.
Many people who would never think to throw trash in their neighbor's yard will, essentially, hire someone to throw trash in their neighbor's yard, and they will sleep like babies at night, believing they are good people.
Corporate apologists consider justice to be something like groceries, i.e. something you send someone out to purchase when you need it.
Maybe I'm dense here, but how does what you said relate to what I said? Having chairs and desks are necessary to make money. Paying artists, and otherwise acting in a moral fashion is obviously not. I never said that corporations have to make the most money they can, this week, at the expense of long term profitability.
But corporations have been sued for not taking advantage when they could. Corporations are a tool for abrogation of responsibility. They let otherwise moral individuals use proxies to engage in immoral activities those individuals would never, themselves, engage in. If one man murders another, it is clear who is to blame. If a corporation does it, the corporation will not face the de3ath penalty. More than likely, it will just face a fine. Was any human even jailed for the disaster at Bhopal? No. If I poisoned thousands of people, though, I would likely be put to death. The corporate form creates immortal, immensely powerful psychopathic entities.
You mean, the way things used to be before corporate interests had the laws changed in their favor? I, for one, would love to go back to the days when corporations' scope of activities were severely limited by law.
No, this is what is wrong with a free market system of distributing justice. Those with money can buy it, those without can not.
The copyright owner's rights are being abridged by a fraudulent copyright claim from WB. Like if I showed up at your house, said I owned the place, and everyone simply agreed with me and kicked you out of your home. Please tell me you are going for some kind of rhetorical approach to a larger argument, and that you are not actually confused on the issue of whose rights are being abridged how.
The Majors are required by law to care only about shareholder profits. Any publicly traded corporation can be sued if they put anything else but the bottom line first. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders. If they use shareholder money to promote art, make music, and support artists without making money for said shareholders, they are breaching that fiduciary responsibility.
It's from the SNL skits featuring Scarlett Johansson. They are a spoof of cheap late night commercials for family run businesses, with Scarlett as the daughter, Lexi, who has a 'deer-in the-headlights, God I hope I get through this without screwing up' look on her face the entire time she's pointing to the pictures of columns or fountains or whatever and saying, woodenly, "You could buy this one. Or that one. Or this one.
I found them hilarious. I think others must have too, because googling 'marble columns' or 'porcelain fountains' returns the skits as the top hits.
Sure, skip the fountain, head down to Mike's Marbleopolis, and pick up a marble column. You could buy this one. Or that one. Or this one. (It's from a recurring series of SNL skits starring Scarlett Johansson.)
Now how about my desktop?
Might I suggest teak? I suppose you could go with faux finished MDF if you are on a budget, but teak is beautiful and will last forever. Then if you have any money left over, nothing says "I have arrived" like a porcelain fountain.
Idiot. You are just flat out wrong, because you listen to idiots. Obama has shown his real Hawaii birth certificate. Snopes, the debunkers of all things stupid, says you are a delusional fucking moron. Fuck off and die in a fire, you America hating traitor.
Remember, the end goal of Communism is anarchism, with direct democratic control over the means of production. The Communists see themselves as the vanguard of the new order, paving the way for direct democracy, when the people are ready for it. Which, surprise, surprise, they never seems to be.
Ideally, there should be no such thing as a politician. Working in politics should be seen as a civic duty that one performs at some point or points in one's life, like jury duty, not as a career.
There are inherent moral risks, in both business and politics, involved with allowing and encouraging a managing class. That is one major problem with the corporate form, as well as with representative democracies. How do we guarantee that these people we have appointed to oversee our interests will actually do so, and not use their power within the system to bend the system into serving their needs and not ours? With sole proprietorships and partnerships, the owners are the managers, or at least they are very close to the managers and maintain knowledge of their activities. Our current system of corporate laws has been designed to benefit the small professional managing class, and not the owners. Our current political system has been tweaked to benefit the small governing class, and not the citizens.
Capitalism and the free market would work much better without corporations, which create a moral hazard by their very structure. With our current communications systems, we could also do away with the governing class and have a direct, participatory democracy. I've heard the arguments against direct democracy, but these are usually put forth by proponents and supporters of the political class, who, like the communists, never think the people are really ready to govern themselves. A proper constitution is a better guard against the tyranny of majority than representatives are, and if we can not trust the people to make good decisions, how can we trust them to decide who will make those decisions? Either we trust people to govern themselves or we don't.
Sorry about the name calling.
The definition you've heard for 'anarchy' is wrong. As I said, an-archy: no-ruler. Not 'no state' or 'no government.' No government would be 'anocracy.' Democratic governments can be anarchies, if there is no one imposing rules using force from above. Direct democracy, for instance, is always an anarchy.
In an anarchist system, power is exercised by the smallest possible groups, with limited areas of responsibility. Larger groups can be entered into by the will of the members of the smaller groups, but this should be voluntary, and the smaller, local groups should take precedence.
In that regard, I believe in a smaller federal government and more autonomy for states, cities and counties.
I used to live on a 300 acre farm in the back woods of West Virginia, and I loved it. Best people in the world, will give you the shirt off their back, etc. I've nothing against anyone from any locality, but it seems hypocritical when states fight for autonomy from a Federal government that is, in some cases, handing them two dollars for every dollar they pay in taxes. Each state gets two senators, no matter how big or small the state, so smaller states interests are better represented.
I've lived abroad, and seen real socialism in action. It works. People are happier and get more from their tax dollars. Most are happy to pay the higher taxes they do because they get good value for the money. However, the most successful socialist democracies have two things in common that we don't: they are culturally homogeneous, so no one feel like their tax money is going to help those 'other' people, but people just like them. They also tend to have more of a history and culture of social cooperation.
The best example of real socialism at work can be found in the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain. Fifty years ago, this was a subsistence farming region of Basque Spain. They built themselves a socialist government, inside the Spanish system, that worked for them. Picture it, everything is a cooperative, schools, housing development, businesses, everything. Each with its own membership and voting. If you want to start your own business, you are given all the help you need to do it right, cooperative business services, staffing, marketing, banking all come together to ensure that the five year failure rate for new businesses is around ten percent. The failure rate, not the success rate as it is here. There is a societal income cap, with the highest paid person making not more than fifty times what the lowest paid person makes. Look it up, it's a pretty interesting case study.
You can see exactly what we pay in taxes by comparing the budgets and deficits of all state and federal programs with GDP. You can do this with any country and get a trues sense of how much they pay in taxes. Our tax rate, as a percentage of GDP, is very, very low. Around 20-30%.
I really do mean what I said about equality of opportunity. As I mentioned, I have nothing against any of my fellow citizens. As much as I become frustrated with the collective actions of people here in America, I've met very few persons I dislike or wish any sort of harm on.
Let me tell you the difference between Anarchy and Communism. In theory, they are working towards the same end: anarchy. Did you know that? Small, local, democratic control is the aim of both Anarchy and Communism. In theory. In practice, anarchists in a communist regime get ice-picks through their heads, because they trust the citizens to do it now whereas the Communists think people need to be lead to self determination by the hand. Communists think that if we just went straight to Anarchy, the powerful would take advantage and recreate the same oppressive system we have now, because people are not ready for real self governance.
The Communist part of me sees our corporate power structure and thinks that we need something equally powerful to fight it before people can really govern themselves without re-enacting the
Well, as my granpappy always said, "Idiots come in all colors."
As I am not a liberal or a progressive, but a flat out anarchist, I take no offense in your characterizations. NOT a fucking libertarian, either, an anarchist. Means 'no rulers,' not 'no government.'
Urban states pay more in taxes, and get less in Federal funds. Backwoods southern Republican/conservative/rural states are parasites on the educated citizenry of America, taking far more in Feral funds than they pay in taxes.
While I don't think racism has been fixed in America, I think we've come a long way. Jefferson, Franklin and Henry were products of their time, and based on the standards of that time, were decidedly NOT racist. So I'd never make that claim.
Liberals and progressives have more in common with mainstream America than conservatives, libertarians, and other forms of right winger. That's why they control the executive and legislative branches right now. People want more socialism, not less.
I wouldn't raise taxes as high as they were in the fifties and sixties, 90% for the highest bracket. The Laffer Curve is a useful theory, providing accurate predictions. Raise taxes too high and you will decrease government revenues while depressing the economy. Studies show that 70% is a much more realistic high end for taxes, so yes, I would raise the highest income tax, say for anything over a quarter million, to 60-70%.
The UN? Really? Sheesh, I don't even have a response to that conspiracy, you guys still worry about the UN taking over America? One world government still terrorizing your nightmares? Sad.
I can't speak for these buttlickers (nice term, did you pull it out of your ass? Fucking Fox News and other teabagger promoters were calling them teabaggers, blissfully unaware of the sexual connotations. We just picked it up and ran with it. It isn't making fun of the teabggers themselves, but rather, the clueless hucksters promoting the 'movement') but as for me, I don't want much for myself, I just want a level playing field and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome, better effort should yield better outcomes. Just make sure that an inner city kid has the same opportunities that a young scion of a wealthy family has.
See, that's how you rebut an idiotic rant. Not by copy paste.
Money ancestors, not monkeys. We were screwing proto-monkeys, not actual monkeys. Allow me to illustrate with an amusing anecdote:
I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that odd since they were normally a couple thousand each. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.
Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.
I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.
I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.
I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.
I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.
I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.
I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.
Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor
wasn't improving.
I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.
I tried throwing them way but the garbage man said that the city wasn't allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.
I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they like them but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.
I like monkeys
See what I mean?
No response? You seemed so into having an actual discussion. Maybe you didn't really want a discussion? Maybe you wanted to pontificate and "win" an argument, while being unwilling to let yourself be swayed by counter-argument. That's the only thing I can assume.
You should really look through your argument and assess which of your statements apply to our current system. It really seems that you are completely okay with rationing, as long as it only applies to poor people. Don't you think that's a tad selfish?
You got that link wrong, butterfingers.
The teabagger parties were entirely the creation of Fox News and special interest groups manipulating the frightened, disenfranchised, gullible and selfish. There were no real 'tea party protests' before Fox News began sponsoring, organizing, and advertising them.
The teabaggers might claim now to be upset with Bush, but you and I both know they all voted for him twice. Teabaggers are not some sort of maverick libertarian group. They are simple uneducated conservatives from back woods redneck states, where the remains of the Republican still hold some sort of sway.
But I can see none of this will get through your ideological defenses. You claim Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry as right wing extremists. Your opinions are demonstrably deranged, and arguing with you will get neither of us anywhere. It is quite obvious that you have already drunk the kool-aid and ordered several more crates of the stuff.
You have nothing in common with our founding fathers. The teabaggers have nothing in common with the Boston tea party. You have representation, and America's taxes are some of the lowest in the world. The teabagger's political philosophy boils down to, "I've got mine, so fuck off and leave me alone." They are childish, petulant, and selfish, not patriotic at all.
To be fair, some of those lines are very long.
Oops, my bad. I'm pretty sure you are right that jd is no denialist. I wasn't even looking at who posted.
You idiots believe anything. You know the people who tell you these things are laughing at you behind your back for being so stupid as to believe them, right? I believe the phrase is "Useful idiots." That's what they think of you for buying their crap.
You are delusional. Stop listening to the morons on Faux News. They fought a court battle for their right to LIE to you, and won, look it up.
Look, if you aren't a child molester, why won't you jump through ridiculous and ever changing hoops that I set up in order to prove you aren't?
Maybe you could try to find some evidence, hmm? Something outside the right wing echo chambers? Yeah, you see, the President HAS released birth certificates and records. As I said, you are simply delusional.