• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tamanon

Banned
Black Republican said:
Pelosi seems pretty supportive of Hilary for prez, i wonder why she doesnt run herself?
Click to expand...

She's had to do too much national governing to be a viable candidate.

President Obama had it perfect with just a little bit of governing in the Senate and then moving on. Means getting bogged down into very few faux scandals.
 
G

gcubed

Member
so when the "rank and file" went around McConnell for the nomination deal, did that mark a tidal wave of making deals? Student loan deal is going through as well.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Tamanon said:
She's had to do too much national governing to be a viable candidate.

President Obama had it perfect with just a little bit of governing in the Senate and then moving on. Means getting bogged down into very few faux scandals.
Click to expand...

Don't forget being 'present' as a state senator, too....
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
I'm always curious as to people's opinions toward corporations. I was just reading the latest Walmart $12/hr wage hike thread, and generally people are criticizing Walmart for not voluntarily paying their employees a higher wage, and for opposing the minimum wage hike.

There is this weird expectation in this country that corporations should do, and actually and regularly do, things out of the goodness of their hearts for their employees. I have no idea where this sentiment comes from. In any event, maybe if people really understood how the combined forces of intense shareholder pressure, compensation tied to quarterly earnings, and strange fiduciary duty laws essentially force corporations to behave like absolute assholes, there would be more people in favor of common sense regulations.

If there is zero expectation that corporations will do anything good willingly, it becomes a lot easier to accept government's involvement in the market. But as most Americans see it, it is possible for corporations to behave ethically, and so therefore they should be given the opportunity to do so. This is completely backwards as far as policy goes, because it is simply impossible for corporations to "do the right thing" unless it will result in maximum profit, or if they are forced to. If the Walmart directors gave huge pay increases to their workers, while being able to retain the workers on lower wages, they would be sued or fired by their shareholders. I think if Americans as a whole understood that dynamic better, they would be much more inclined towards heavy regulations.

It's funny, I wonder if liberals have undermined their own pro-regulation arguments by painting "certain" corporations as "evil" over the years. Implicit in the assertion that any one corporation is "evil" is the assertion that it is possible for a corporation to be good or evil. That kind of characterization is playing right into the corporatist's hands. Instead, we need to view corporations, whether Starbucks, Apple, or Walmart, as they truly are: amoral mechanisms designed specifically to take advantage of any opportunities to make as much profit as possible. We shouldn't criticize Walmart when they behave like dicks, we should criticize the corporate form in general.

Edit: After I wrote this, I received an email from a progressive group criticizing McDonald's compensation policies. -_-
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Black Republican said:
Pelosi seems pretty supportive of Hilary for prez, i wonder why she doesnt run herself?
Click to expand...

Because she's poison among moderates, and will be 76?

I wonder how disappointed she is with Obama. Her comments about Hillary being the most qualified candidate in decades makes me wonder if she has second thoughts about somewhat blatantly supporting Obama over Hillary in 2008.
 
S

SleazyC

Member
RDreamer said:
Old idiots fail to understand technology. News at 11.

It's funny, but pretty expected. What's horrifying is realizing that these people are also drafting legislation on that technology...
Click to expand...
You'd think that IT teams that work on Capitol Hill would be a bit noisy in letting all the Congress people and their staff know that they must have strong passwords. Furthermore, interning at some federal government organizations I was subjected to some terrible password criteria that forced me to have some obscure passwords. Would make sense to me to do the same for Congress people + staff.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
A strong majority of Americans, 59 percent, said they would like to see the House either pass the Senate’s immigration bill as is or pass a version with even tougher border-control measures, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

In contrast, only one in five voters said they prefer that the House pass no immigration legislation at all, and only 13 percent said they want the House to strip the path to citizenship from the Senate’s bill.

In the survey, respondents were given four options for how the House should proceed on immigration. The two most popular answers were to pass the Senate bill with tougher border-enforcement provisions (30 percent) and to pass the Senate measure as is (29 percent).
Click to expand...

In the survey, 37 percent of Democrats said they wanted the House to simply pass the Senate bill—a position supported by only 18 percent of Republicans. But Republicans were not enamored of the idea of stripping out citizenship provisions (16 percent) or passing no bill at all (16 percent). Instead, a plurality of Republicans, 42 percent, said they would like the House to pass a version of the Senate legislation but with firmer border-security provisions.
Click to expand...


Interestingly, the combination of Democrats in favor of the current Senate bill and those in favor of an alternative with strong border measures (59 percent) was almost equal to the percentage of Republicans favoring those two options (60 percent). The parties were simply inverted on whether they preferred the Senate bill as is or with stronger border security.

Support for passing the Senate legislation was strongest among young Americans, those 18 to 29 years old: 36 percent of this group backed that way forward. Only 17 percent of young people said they did not want any immigration measure to pass.
Click to expand...



http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...-to-pass-the-senate-immigration-bill-20130717

So, 60% of republicans want the Senate bill to pass with a pathway to citizenship in it.

But PD said!

Also, young people highly support it. Dat GOP future.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Frank the Great said:
I'm always curious as to people's opinions toward corporations. I was just reading the latest Walmart $12/hr wage hike thread, and generally people are criticizing Walmart for not voluntarily paying their employees a higher wage, and for opposing the minimum wage hike.

There is this weird expectation in this country that corporations should do, and actually and regularly do, things out of the goodness of their hearts for their employees. I have no idea where this sentiment comes from. In any event, maybe if people really understood how the combined forces of intense shareholder pressure, compensation tied to quarterly earnings, and strange fiduciary duty laws essentially force corporations to behave like absolute assholes, there would be more people in favor of common sense regulations.

If there is zero expectation that corporations will do anything good willingly, it becomes a lot easier to accept government's involvement in the market. But as most Americans see it, it is possible for corporations to behave ethically, and so therefore they should be given the opportunity to do so. This is completely backwards as far as policy goes, because it is simply impossible for corporations to "do the right thing" unless it will result in maximum profit, or if they are forced to. If the Walmart directors gave huge pay increases to their workers, while being able to retain the workers on lower wages, they would be sued or fired by their shareholders. I think if Americans as a whole understood that dynamic better, they would be much more inclined towards heavy regulations.

It's funny, I wonder if liberals have undermined their own pro-regulation arguments by painting "certain" corporations as "evil" over the years. Implicit in the assertion that any one corporation is "evil" is the assertion that it is possible for a corporation to be good or evil. That kind of characterization is playing right into the corporatist's hands. Instead, we need to view corporations, whether Starbucks, Apple, or Walmart, as they truly are: amoral mechanisms designed specifically to take advantage of any opportunities to make as much profit as possible. We shouldn't criticize Walmart when they behave like dicks, we should criticize the corporate form in general.

Edit: After I wrote this, I received an email from a progressive group criticizing McDonald's compensation policies. -_-
Click to expand...

I completely agree, that's a liberal and misguided reaction. But people further left readily accept private corporations are not supposed to be kind, in fact are the contrary, and that's why they want the state to be able to choke them into submission (or get rid of them entirely as they currently stand).

I am not convinced just by the regulation rhetoric though. I see an exploitative system that should be overcome with something better/different, not upheld for the sake of conservative values and fear of something new. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support strong regulations obviously and a strong welfare state, just that it shouldn't be the end of the line imo.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Frank the Great said:
I'm always curious as to people's opinions toward corporations. I was just reading the latest Walmart $12/hr wage hike thread, and generally people are criticizing Walmart for not voluntarily paying their employees a higher wage, and for opposing the minimum wage hike.

There is this weird expectation in this country that corporations should do, and actually and regularly do, things out of the goodness of their hearts for their employees. I have no idea where this sentiment comes from. In any event, maybe if people really understood how the combined forces of intense shareholder pressure, compensation tied to quarterly earnings, and strange fiduciary duty laws essentially force corporations to behave like absolute assholes, there would be more people in favor of common sense regulations.

If there is zero expectation that corporations will do anything good willingly, it becomes a lot easier to accept government's involvement in the market. But as most Americans see it, it is possible for corporations to behave ethically, and so therefore they should be given the opportunity to do so. This is completely backwards as far as policy goes, because it is simply impossible for corporations to "do the right thing" unless it will result in maximum profit, or if they are forced to. If the Walmart directors gave huge pay increases to their workers, while being able to retain the workers on lower wages, they would be sued or fired by their shareholders. I think if Americans as a whole understood that dynamic better, they would be much more inclined towards heavy regulations.

It's funny, I wonder if liberals have undermined their own pro-regulation arguments by painting "certain" corporations as "evil" over the years. Implicit in the assertion that any one corporation is "evil" is the assertion that it is possible for a corporation to be good or evil. That kind of characterization is playing right into the corporatist's hands. Instead, we need to view corporations, whether Starbucks, Apple, or Walmart, as they truly are: amoral mechanisms designed specifically to take advantage of any opportunities to make as much profit as possible. We shouldn't criticize Walmart when they behave like dicks, we should criticize the corporate form in general.

Edit: After I wrote this, I received an email from a progressive group criticizing McDonald's compensation policies. -_-
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the fact that as the top level executives of these corporations make more and more and live in luxury, the lower level employees make next to nothing and live in poverty. How much did the CEO of Walmart make last year?
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm sure you're all surprised by this:

If you're relying on financial advice from Fox News contributor Erick Erickson to become a millionaire overnight, you might want to hold off on buying that boat.

Erickson emailed subscribers to his RedState.com email list this week claiming he's found the "best investment advice I know of, bar none," in the financial newsletter of analyst Mark Skousen. Yet 12 paragraphs of Erickson's signed endorsement are virtually identical to language used by Ann Coulter in emails nearly four years ago.

Erickson's email -- titled, "How to Retire in Comfort Even If You DON'T Work in Government" -- attacks public-sector workers for purportedly living in luxury with President Barack Obama in office. He then endorsed Skousen's newsletter, which purports to reveal a "secret" system to becoming "instant millionaires." Erickson claimed that Skousen "knows how to make you money," and the "best investment advice I know of, bar none, can be found in Mark Skousen's Forecasts & Strategies -- and I urge you to give it a try."
Click to expand...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/07/18/19544658-hard-times-for-conservative-media?lite

Chris Hayes made an important point this morning that's easily overlooked: "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks."
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
I've believed for a while now that a lot of the media and political aspects of the conservative movement are nothing but an attempt to play into fears of the base in order to make a quick buck.

From Rush to Gincrich, it's all that it is about. They probably don't believe half the shit they spew, if not more.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Link said:
I think it has more to do with the fact that as the top level executives of these corporations make more and more and live in luxury, the lower level employees make next to nothing and live in poverty. How much did the CEO of Walmart make last year?
Click to expand...

If that is the true concern, I think it still furthers what I am saying, just in a different way. My overall point is that Americans need to stop expecting corporations to behave ethically. Complaining about executives who are paid obscene compensation is part of the problem, because that argument assumes that executives should ask for less money without any outside enforcement. We shouldn't ask Walmart's CEO to start working for less money, or criticize the Walmart board for vast overcompensation. Doing that plays directly into the hands of people who believe these problems can be solved through self-regulation. Instead, we should demand regulations or labor union protections to combat the self-interest of those in charge.

Essentially my argument is for a return to realism in our attitude toward corporations. They are going to be assholes all the time, and people need to stop expecting something else. Criticizing individual corporate actions and decisions is counter-productive to those that seek an enhanced regulatory environment. We should instead criticize the corporation as an institution and our corporate laws. If people stop expecting corporations to do the right thing, then the next logical step is to force them to.
 
K

KtSlime

Member
Frank The Great: I think on a basic level, for a corporation to exist, they should write a charter, and in that charter detail their basic rules of operation, goals, and how it will benefit the people in the place the corporation is being chartered. I also think that the corporation should be subject to the whims of The People in the place it is chartered, and if The People decide that they do not like the practices performed by said corporation they can remove them with a simple majority vote, and sell off, or put the property into the public domain.*

Corporations exist for the benefit of us, not the owner. We just use the owners' greed as a carrot to keep them spinning the wheel of production. If we don't like what they are producing, who are they to tell us we can't stop them. Corporations should be subservient to humans.

*Just a basic outline, I'm sure many details would have to be looked at to see if it would work.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
I can understand dismissing/questioning early polls (see: my Hagan haggling), but I don't get this; the election is a couple months away, and the board is set. Obviously a losing campaign has to wave off bad polling ("well that's not what I see when I campaign around the state"), and there's nothing wrong with that. But Cooch and many republicans go beyond that into some really stupid, unprofessional shit. PPP proved themselves in 2012 (and 2008, etc etc), shitting on them makes no sense.
Click to expand...
PPP makes conservatives ridiculously salty, and I think the fact that they've been right consistently irks them even more. It's sort of like last year when everyone was shitting on Nate Silver because they didn't want to admit that Obama had a solid lead.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I am very surprised how well republican's explanation for passing the farm bill sans food stamps is going over. Apparently people really believe they're simplifying US law by separating the two issues and removing food stamps from what's called a farm bill.

Problem is the two things aren't unrelated, they are both solutions to making sure no person goes hungry. One side is supply side, and tries to give money to keep prices steady and low, and the other side is demand side which gives people that need it the money to buy food. One party wants to solve it supply side, the other wants to solve it supply side, so they compromise and pass the bill that contains both ways. Thats why both things need to be combined into one bill. It's not like this is some random law politicians are trying to hid by masking it behind a motorcycle bill or anything.

Then again I know you guys know this, just needed to type it up to feel less crazy.

It's so sad that Republicans spend so much trying to kill inefficient government instead of trying to solve it. Like maybe they are right about food stamps being used where they shouldn't be, and maybe some people do need to try harder to move past food stamps instead of settling on living off them for the rest of their life. But every single time they have a good point, they still propose the worst solutions. You don't just destroy a very useful government operation just because some percentage of it is inefficient or wasteful.

It's just another thing that makes Republicans true motivation all the more obvious. They don't really care about the wasteful part of government, they just care that we have to collect taxes in order to provide certain parts of government. It doesn't matter how many people it helps or how long it's been around, 0 taxes and 0 spending is the only goal, unless the spending can specifically benefit the rich.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
thepotatoman said:
I am very surprised how well republican's explanation for passing the farm bill sans food stamps is going over. Apparently people really believe they're simplifying US law by separating the two issues and removing food stamps from what's called a farm bill.

Problem is the two things aren't unrelated, they are both solutions to making sure no person goes hungry. One side is supply side, and tries to give money to keep prices steady and low, and the other side is demand side which gives people that need it the money to buy food. One party wants to solve it supply side, the other wants to solve it supply side, so they compromise and pass the bill that contains both ways. Thats why both things need to be combined into one bill. It's not like this is some random law politicians are trying to hid by masking it behind a motorcycle bill or anything.

Then again I know you guys know this, just needed to type it up to feel less crazy.

It's so sad that Republicans spend so much trying to kill inefficient government instead of trying to solve it. Like maybe they are right about food stamps being used where they shouldn't be, and maybe some people do need to try harder to move past food stamps instead of settling on living off them for the rest of their life. But every single time they have a good point, they still propose the worst solutions. You don't just destroy a very useful government operation just because some percentage of it is inefficient or wasteful.

It's just another thing that makes Republicans true motivation all the more obvious. They don't really care about the wasteful part of government, they just care that we have to collect taxes in order to provide certain parts of government. It doesn't matter how many people it helps or how long it's been around, 0 taxes and 0 spending is the only goal, unless the spending can specifically benefit the rich.
Click to expand...

It pisses me off to know end that people my age who are perfectly capable of working decide to live off food stamps instead, but I'm not going to spite the people who honestly need it just to deprive those parasites. But food stamps is one of those programs where I'm not sure how possible it is to actually remove the waste. There are far bigger expenditures that can net bigger results (*military cough cough*).
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So Gina McCarthy got confirmed to the EPA. I know this was supposed to be a done deal, but with Republicans, you never know.

Can't wait to see all the havoc McCarthy and her Green Shirts will wreak on the job creators. :D
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Giant Panda said:
Democrats had the highest percent not wanting anything passed. Does that stem from being secret immigrant haters or political opportunists? I guess the latter.
Click to expand...
My guess would be that they don't want to waste more money on border security and want a shorter, simpler pass to citizenship, but those options are not available in the survey.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
On repealing Obamacare:

"If it's 37, 38, 39, I don't care," Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) said this week. "If we do it 100 times, sooner or later we'll get it right."
Click to expand...

Well, then.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
By the way, it's practically criminal that Pelosi's approval ratings are anywhere near the galaxy as Boehner, McConnell or any other flat-Earther Republican in congress. I don't even know how that's possible.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Oblivion said:
By the way, it's practically criminal that Pelosi's approval ratings are anywhere near the galaxy as Boehner, McConnell or any other flat-Earther Republican in congress. I don't even know how that's possible.
Click to expand...

She's a liberal woman from San Francisco in a leadership position.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
ivedoneyourmom said:
Frank The Great: I think on a basic level, for a corporation to exist, they should write a charter, and in that charter detail their basic rules of operation, goals, and how it will benefit the people in the place the corporation is being chartered. I also think that the corporation should be subject to the whims of The People in the place it is chartered, and if The People decide that they do not like the practices performed by said corporation they can remove them with a simple majority vote, and sell off, or put the property into the public domain.*

Corporations exist for the benefit of us, not the owner. We just use the owners' greed as a carrot to keep them spinning the wheel of production. If we don't like what they are producing, who are they to tell us we can't stop them. Corporations should be subservient to humans.

*Just a basic outline, I'm sure many details would have to be looked at to see if it would work.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.

As an aside, I wrote a rant making essentially this same argument on a Business Associations (corporate law) final, and got an A+.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Earlier this week, President Barack Obama endorsed New York City police commissioner, and stop-and-frisk cheerleader, Ray Kelly as an adequate replacement for Janet Napolitano as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Under Kelly, the New York Police Department’s policy on randomly stopping people in the streets and then questioning and patting them down for weapons and drugs, imposed a stiff burden on black and Latino residents. According to the ACLU in New York, between 2002 and 2011, black and Latino New Yorkers made up close to 90 percent of those stopped by police — 88 percent of whom had no weapons or drugs on them when it happened. Kelly has staunchly defended the policy regardless of the racial profiling it codifies and its fruitless conclusions.

But Obama told Univision on Wednesday that “Kelly has obviously done an extraordinary job in New York,” and that the police commissioner is “one of the best there is” — an “outstanding leader in New York.”

“Mr. Kelly might be very happy where he is,” said Obama. “But if he’s not I’d want to know about it. ‘Cause, you know, obvioiusly he’d be very well qualified for the job.”

This endorsement seems tone deaf given the current conversations nationwide around national security. Kelly’s “extraordinary” work in New York City has led to the city council passing the Community Safety Act, which scales back the police’s ability to racially profile considerably. Kelly’s stop-and-frisk policy is being challenged in federal court by the Center for Constitutional Rights right now. Obama’s own Justice Department may be sending in a federal monitor to ensure that NYPD stops racial profiling. The following, questioning and apprehension of targeted black males is at the crux of the current debate around George Zimmerman’s killing Trayvon Martin.
Click to expand...
http://m.colorlines.com/archives/20...on.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Utterly pathetic. I refuse to believe Obama will nominate him, but if he does...wow.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
WASHINGTON -- The latest hearing on the Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of tea party and other groups turned heated Thursday, with House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) comparing his Democratic counterpart, ranking member Elijah Cummings, to a "little boy."

The testy exchange came after Cummings, a 62-year-old African-American congressman from Baltimore, challenged past insinuations by Republicans that the White House was behind the IRS targeting. Cummings was picking up on testimony from two IRS witnesses who both said they knew of no evidence of political motivations in the enhanced scrutiny, which also included some progressive groups.

But Issa took issue with Cummings, denying that he had implied the orders came from the highest office in the land and insisting that he only said the targeting came from Washington.

Issa interrupted at the start of another member's remarks to express his "shock" at Cummings.

"I'm always shocked when the ranking member seems to want to say, like a little boy whose hand has been caught in a cookie jar, 'What hand? What cookie?' I've never said it leads to the White House," Issa said.

In fact, he has pointed to the Obama administration and went so far as to call President Barack Obama's top spokesman, Jay Carney, a "paid liar."

Later at the hearing, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said that since Carney had suggested the case was limited to local officials -- including, Chaffetz indicated, one of the current witnesses, Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed tea party cases in an Ohio IRS office -- "I do think the White House is now engaged" in the scandal.

Issa quickly added, "The gentleman is entitled to his opinion."

UPDATE: 4:41 p.m. -- Issa later walked back his remarks, saying he "took a shortcut" in using an expression from his youth.

"I want to make it very clear that when I talk about the 'little boy putting his hand in the cookie jar' ... that is something that I grew up with, and it is intended to be about a small child, and in no way is the use of 'boy' or 'little boy' to mean anything else,” he said.

Issa denied that he would even think some of the pejorative associations that could come with those words, let alone say them in such contexts.

Cummings appeared satisfied with the explanation.

"I really do appreciate your words, and of course they were taken out of context and twisted, or whatever,” he said.
Click to expand...

Issa, California's biggest embarrassment.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
Frank The Great: I think on a basic level, for a corporation to exist, they should write a charter, and in that charter detail their basic rules of operation, goals, and how it will benefit the people in the place the corporation is being chartered. I also think that the corporation should be subject to the whims of The People in the place it is chartered, and if The People decide that they do not like the practices performed by said corporation they can remove them with a simple majority vote, and sell off, or put the property into the public domain.*

Corporations exist for the benefit of us, not the owner. We just use the owners' greed as a carrot to keep them spinning the wheel of production. If we don't like what they are producing, who are they to tell us we can't stop them. Corporations should be subservient to humans.

*Just a basic outline, I'm sure many details would have to be looked at to see if it would work.
Click to expand...

You've basically described how corporations originated, except the charters were written by the public, not the corporation. In fact, corporations are still charter-based. It's just that the public has relinquished exercising this power as a means of controlling them.
 
R

rocketknight

Member
Aaron Strife said:
PPP makes conservatives ridiculously salty, and I think the fact that they've been right consistently irks them even more. It's sort of like last year when everyone was shitting on Nate Silver because they didn't want to admit that Obama had a solid lead.
Click to expand...

Conservatives just assume that PPP is the opposite of Rasmussen so of course they're goosing the numbers - we goose our numbers so they must totally be goosing their numbers!
 
A

Averon

Member
rocketknight said:
Conservatives just assume that PPP is the opposite of Rasmussen so of course they're goosing the numbers - we goose our numbers so they must totally be goosing their numbers!
Click to expand...

Projection runs rampant in conservative circles, so it shouldn't be all that surprising.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
But republicans don't believe Ras gooses his numbers. They spent much of 2008, 2010, and 2012 focusing entirely on Ras as an independent pollster. He was wrong in all three elections to varying degrees.

PPP trolls republicans on twitter and with some of their questions. Plus their polls tend to reflect a general reality that yes, republicans are not popular nationally. In 2016 I'm sure they'll still be shat on, Nate Silver will be attacked, etc.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
One of the richest people I knew from college (now unfriended) reposted this ridiculous anecdote on Facebook about how this struggling doctor had to help some Welfare Queen on Medicaid and how she had a "gold tooth" and a nice fancy cell phone. The moral being, good people shouldn't have to pay for the government health care of these leachers, they need to take personal responsibility!*

*Except when your parents pay for your entire college tuition, because that's just assumed, right?

I hate people. It read like a fucking parody, and I'm venting here because I don't talk politics on Facebook out of principle but was too upset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 2
98
4K
SlimySnake replied
Jensen Huang's net worth passes Intel's market cap
Business
34
2K
Hawking Radiation replied
Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
676
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
537
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Top Bottom