By Perfect Blue Go To PostNothing more than that tweet because city council just passed it today.Ahh fair enough.
I always wonder; do any of you guys actually know a billionaire? Because I know a few and they don't behave how the caricature of a rich fuck you've created. But this may be just a cultural difference with way they grew up here. Because I know a few rich cunts who fit that mould but they generally are from new money Canadians or Americans.
By Lunatic Go To PostAhh fair enough.
I always wonder; do any of you guys actually know a billionaire? Because I know a few and they don't behave how the caricature of a rich fuck you've created. But this may be just a cultural difference with way they grew up here. Because I know a few rich cunts who fit that mould but they generally are from new money Canadians or Americans.
A few and they are all cunts and most of them are super cheap too.
Billionaires(or close to) who are self made through a business of their own can usually be humble and nice people. Often they have a big impact in communities that were there at the beginning. Their offsprings will usually be the biggest pricks in the world.
Old money brings more traditional values, a pseudo attachment to the concept of nobility, and that usually makes for well respected people who come across in a good light in person.
But it’s only when you personally know them, their family, and what actually happens behind the curtain, that you realize it’s very hard for these people to not be cunts in their actions. They might shake your hand and be nice to you, be respectful to you, but so what? Is that the barometer now? To not be an utter cunt in person? That makes it right for all the legal loopholes they use to evade taxes, to pay their employees the least they can, to lobby politicians and corrupt the system? Come on.
Unfortunately the further you rise and the closer you get to them, the more excuses you make for them because you’re making those excuses for yourself also. If you don’t, you’re not respected and you’re seen as a petulant child.
Old money brings more traditional values, a pseudo attachment to the concept of nobility, and that usually makes for well respected people who come across in a good light in person.
But it’s only when you personally know them, their family, and what actually happens behind the curtain, that you realize it’s very hard for these people to not be cunts in their actions. They might shake your hand and be nice to you, be respectful to you, but so what? Is that the barometer now? To not be an utter cunt in person? That makes it right for all the legal loopholes they use to evade taxes, to pay their employees the least they can, to lobby politicians and corrupt the system? Come on.
Unfortunately the further you rise and the closer you get to them, the more excuses you make for them because you’re making those excuses for yourself also. If you don’t, you’re not respected and you’re seen as a petulant child.
mcfish
Agreed. All the fucking people whining '$15 an hour minimum wage means everything will rise in price!'
Bitch if there weren't billionaires everyone could afford everything
By Perfect Blue Go To PostFuck all billionaires. That amount of money is immoral.
Agreed. All the fucking people whining '$15 an hour minimum wage means everything will rise in price!'
Bitch if there weren't billionaires everyone could afford everything
By n8 dogg Go To Postmcfishno they couldn't
Agreed. All the fucking people whining '$15 an hour minimum wage means everything will rise in price!'
Bitch if there weren't billionaires everyone could afford everything
if you divided up the wealth of all the billionaires then people in the developing world would get a decent chunk of money and people in the us or eu would get like a month's wages
By sohois Go To Postno they couldn'tLet's do it.
if you divided up the wealth of all the billionaires then people in the developing world would get a decent chunk of money and people in the us or eu would get like a month's wages
By sohois Go To Postno they couldn't
if you divided up the wealth of all the billionaires then people in the developing world would get a decent chunk of money and people in the us or eu would get like a month's wages
fine by me
By DY_nasty Go To Postgood thing we're onto defense and sustainment now 🙄Nation Building!
Listening to Trump era Republican Radio used to be a guilty pleasure as they defended his weekly fukkery, but now it's just cry about Joe season and it's boring as fuk.
RIP
RIP
The House impeachment managers on Thursday called on former President Donald J. Trump to testify before or during his Senate trial next week, making an unexpected attempt to question the former president on record under oath about his actions on Jan. 6, when he is accused of inciting the riot by a mob of his supporters at the Capitol.Lindsey Graham counters with Kamala Harris!
In a letter to Mr. Trump, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead House impeachment prosecutor, said the president’s response this week to the House’s “incitement of insurrection” charge had challenged “incontrovertible facts” about his conduct as the assault unfolded, and demanded further explanation.
Lindsey Graham awarded -10 shame affinity.
By reilo Go To PostLindsey Graham counters with Kamala Harris!
Lindsey Graham awarded -10 shame affinity.
He won’t take the stand, but man wound that be amazing.
Edit:
That and the dominion suit are pretty big. Basically the only accountability we'll see as far as the election farce shit.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostThat and the dominion suit are pretty big. Basically the only accountability we'll see as far as the election farce shit.
I just hope this results in another newsmax style on air Mike lindell implosion.
In a move without precedent in the modern Congress, the House voted 230 to 199— over near-unanimous Republican opposition — to remove Ms. Greene from the Education and Budget Committees.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHahahaa eat shit, bitch.
Canceled with some bipartisan support lol
By DY_nasty Go To Postcongress absolutely loving private businesses doing their job for them
what could go wrong…. smh
What can congress do to Fox News?
is that a real question? congress got more power than the fucking UN lol the fact that this running gag has even gotten this far is a testament to how little anyone in our government cares about accountability or responsibility
instead of just nipping this in the bud even 10 years back, there's a collective decision to play us vs them with fox and nbc and no one even asks how it even happened anymore. but now its gone from just free, promoted and guaranteed accessibility to actual corporate meme warfare
big clap. there's no way this comes back to fuck us
edit: to clarify, congress should be the ones reinforcing the ethical proprieties and processes regarding the election integrity here. not allowing a third party to do it on their behalf at their leisure. how this isn't ridiculous to everyone.... i don't think people even want off the ride anymore
instead of just nipping this in the bud even 10 years back, there's a collective decision to play us vs them with fox and nbc and no one even asks how it even happened anymore. but now its gone from just free, promoted and guaranteed accessibility to actual corporate meme warfare
big clap. there's no way this comes back to fuck us
edit: to clarify, congress should be the ones reinforcing the ethical proprieties and processes regarding the election integrity here. not allowing a third party to do it on their behalf at their leisure. how this isn't ridiculous to everyone.... i don't think people even want off the ride anymore
By DY_nasty Go To Postis that a real question?
edit: to clarify, congress should be the ones reinforcing the ethical proprieties and processes regarding the election integrity here. not allowing a third party to do it on their behalf at their leisure. how this isn't ridiculous to everyone….
Yes and you’ve not provided and answer, including your edit. Do you want to see the fairness doctrine? How is congress going to prevent someone from exercising their 1st amendment rights, which includes the right to lie.
Another reason I’m asking you, is that you specifically have expressed a willingness to five up your 1st amendment rights. Congress acting here would be the textbook definition of censorship
Defamation seems to be the only true legal Avenue here
yeah if you view this problem through the lens of one 30 day window to the next lol.... don't know what talking head got you trained to reach for 'but but fairness doctrine!' either
reporters get tossed in jail or blackballed for getting shit right in america ffs
but again, yes - what could possibly go wrong with letting private businesses put up a better fight to defend electoral processes and integrity than congress? hell. what could go right about it?
reporters get tossed in jail or blackballed for getting shit right in america ffs
but again, yes - what could possibly go wrong with letting private businesses put up a better fight to defend electoral processes and integrity than congress? hell. what could go right about it?
By DY_nasty Go To Postyeah if you view this problem through the lens of one 30 day window to the next lol…. don't know what talking head got you trained to reach for 'but but fairness doctrine!' either
reporters get tossed in jail or blackballed for getting shit right in america ffs
but again, yes - what could possibly go wrong with letting private businesses put up a better fight to defend electoral processes and integrity than congress? hell. what could go right about it?
I brought up the fairness doctrine because its quite often a thing Liberals toss around when Fox get stupid.
I’m sorry you don’t like the 1st amendment. /shrug
Congress can also pass legislation to reduce the risk of fraud and potential FUD I suppose.
I agree letting Fox News lie and poison the election is bad too. I
It’s don’t see a congressional way to prevent that that isn’t unconstitutional
when did the first amendment become anything other than what powerful people hide behind? like cmon lol. want to test your free speech? call your local radio station and start dissing the farm bureau federation. its immediately very, very clear what's not fair game and what is in the media.
and the writing was on the wall regarding the trajectory for this kind of cheerleading rhetoric back when glenn beck was a thing. but instead of nipping it in the bud then, we sanctioned it and turned political coverage into fantasy sports. so sure. let these guys set the precedent instead of congress. give them the out of not even bothering to set rules in their own game.
and the writing was on the wall regarding the trajectory for this kind of cheerleading rhetoric back when glenn beck was a thing. but instead of nipping it in the bud then, we sanctioned it and turned political coverage into fantasy sports. so sure. let these guys set the precedent instead of congress. give them the out of not even bothering to set rules in their own game.
The radio station isn’t limiting my free speech by not giving me their platform. The government telling a radio station what it can and can’t say is limiting free speech though.
Maybe through fines? Similar to cursing on TV. Is that what you mean by “sanction”?
I fail to see how giving people in power the ability to limit free speech helps prevent other people in power from hiding behind further locked in regulations of speech. It just seem like a way to further game the system in their favor
Unrelated, but at one point I remember republicans wanting to stop critical thinking being taught in schools in Texas. It just seems like a very dangerous thing to play with.
It’s an interesting topic, cause I do agree with the negative externalities you bring up just not your solution. I don’t have a good answer myself either though
Maybe through fines? Similar to cursing on TV. Is that what you mean by “sanction”?
I fail to see how giving people in power the ability to limit free speech helps prevent other people in power from hiding behind further locked in regulations of speech. It just seem like a way to further game the system in their favor
Unrelated, but at one point I remember republicans wanting to stop critical thinking being taught in schools in Texas. It just seems like a very dangerous thing to play with.
It’s an interesting topic, cause I do agree with the negative externalities you bring up just not your solution. I don’t have a good answer myself either though
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe radio station isn’t limiting my free speech by not giving me their platform. The government telling a radio station what it can and can’t say is limiting free speech though.I totally get you but we always know where this ends. With draconian laws that limit dissent. Remember government can define vaguely what something is and isn't. We know that republicans with easily try to limit what is said if it benefits their party.
Maybe through fines? Similar to cursing on TV. Is that what you mean by “sanction”?
I fail to see how giving people in power the ability to limit free speech helps prevent other people in power from hiding behind further locked in regulations of speech. It just seem like a way to further game the system in their favor
Unrelated, but at one point I remember republicans wanting to stop critical thinking being taught in schools in Texas. It just seems like a very dangerous thing to play with.
It’s an interesting topic, cause I do agree with the negative externalities you bring up just not your solution. I don’t have a good answer myself either though