RagnarMaximus

1641 pts · January 8, 2014


I think Ol' Musky thinks it sounds cool and edgy.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

(In the US, not me.) Affectionately known as good old "Custer's last stand"--taming the Indians in the west!

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This, why do people invariably suggest the nonvoting population is so much better.

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The current richest people are there because they have done so well the last decade.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Point taken, but perhaps a more accurate comparison is the three richest people a decade ago compared to three richest now.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(I'm only commenting on that in response to Showsni.) If you've paid your medical bills for cancer you might not want to pay someone else's.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I agreed with you in my first comment and in the other comments I'm talking about paying for general treatments or medical debts of others.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Obviously there are differences, but they are comparable in the relevant dimension of I already paid for mine so why should I pay for yours.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yes, announcing something like that or medicare for all would be comparable and would garner similar reactions from the same sets of people.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

This isn't comparable since the debt is being "cured" by having the rest of society pay for it. You can argue they should but not comparable

4 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

Wait what, we can block tags? Damn, thanks, that's useful information. I've only been lurking for 12 years.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Don't tell me what to do Angrymechanic, I'm starting a cult! Praise be to deaththeunholy!!! Salvation can only be found through them!!

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Lolol, people do something because they want "X." Not interesting formula: fear of not having "X," so fear-induced!

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Gotcha, that'd be quite an elaborate con with a lot of things that could go wrong in my opinion, but at least I now understand your point.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The point of the Texas bill is so that people can grift like you say. Mackenzie is making it free for victims of the grift to challenge it.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It does the exact opposite? It's stopping people from getting pushed over and forking up $10K without a fight.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I think anti discrimination laws (e.g. the civil rights act) are good. But, I understand the benefit of not having the government draw lines

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Perhaps, but it certainly *could* violate freedom of expression. It is a difficult question of where to draw the line?

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The initial claim is that customizing a cake for a gay marriage goes against the baker's freedom of expression.

4 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Ermmm... you are not allowed to plagiarize yourself in academic publications. You have to properly cite prior work and can't copy/paste.

4 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 10

Bret Baier is the very last journalist-host remaining in my opinion.

4 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

Amen.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Probably, but they are specifically buying troubled companies that they can buy for cheap.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Albeit, there certainly are scrapers too who decide that the capital assets are worth more than the company itself.

4 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Devil's Advocate: Many do the exact opposite. They buy failing companies and cut/downsize them to maximize long-term profitablity.

4 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

We all live in society and have our own experiences. Not having an empirical source doesn't invalidate their perspective.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ahoy-hoy, come and find me!! ❤️

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0