unbillievable

according to that article, the apocalypse should have started 2 years ago. ...this was written in 2013

I would also like to abstain from federal taxes until such time as we get invaded and/or need social security, etc.

I miss the days when it wasn't my business what people did in the privacy of their bedroom. Somehow, that evolved into being called a bigot for not joining the parade.

PHD in Gender Studies? They're going to refer to this idiot as a "doctor?" This person's purpose in life will be to screw up people's lives.

The biggest problems in the economy are also the most regulated. Health, Education, Housing, Banking...

That study makes sense to a liberal because their definition of "women" is not restricted by biology.

The fact you can't tell the difference, is interesting. When someone says something that crazy, you'd expect it to be a joke, but there are people who believe it. One of them was the President. Another one lost to Hilary. Yet another is thinking of running in 2020. Maybe I will be more supportive of Socialism if the work was divided equally, and not just the wealth.

To be perfectly honest, my first reaction to Trump supporting legalization, is to question my support of it. It's like when people told me the VW bug was an Idea from Hitler... made me dislike Bumblebee, a little.

You didn't build that. Someone else made it happen. So pay your fair share.

You would support Thanos over Captain America?

Like I said, people don't like Capitalism because they want to shape society in their own image. WE use the government to shape the market, and our community... as we should; we aren't barbarians. We're civilized folk with empathy (at least according to the empathy test)

It has been discovered that wealth and labor is concentrated into a small number of people no matter what economic model a group practices. It even goes beyond economics and is a basic truth about human group dynamics. This "law" states that everything, whether it be money, work, etc, 50% is created primarily by the square root of the total people involved. The rest are left with the scraps. For example: If there are 10 people in a study group, 1 person will do 50% of the homework. if there are 100 salesmen; half the products will be sold by 10 people. If 10,000 restaurants are started, 100 of those will reap 50% of the revenue for the entire city. Of course, there are probably exceptions... but the rule generally works whenever any group of people get together. There are the movers, and the rest of us are followers (and have to live off the leftover dregs)

So your problem is economic inequality, which probably means your ideology is Socialism. The deterioration isn't caused by Capitalism, but by people who's ideology opposes the fair distribution that the free market imposes. The same revolution occurs under socialism when the earners fight against the confiscation of their wages for redistribution. Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.

He's baiting the players to pick someone. And they will pick a thug, probably someone who deserves to be in jail, a person most people will think is a criminal. Then he will ridicule the players and paint them as idiots.

When the benefits outweigh the costs. Capitalism is about exchanging goods and services that benefit both parties. Whenever one side is hurt in a transaction, it's tyranny. Pure capitalism has no failings. People just have an issue with true fairness. Every single rule, regulation and program creates an economic inefficiency to promote an ideology (basic economics!). What makes it seem "wrong" is that everyone has an ideology, so what you perceive as a "failing" is actually just a circumstance that is opposed to your personal worldview. What you think of as a "correction" to the free market, another will mark as "tyranny." What gets us in trouble is that everyone has a different path they want to take their community. Here's the thing, no one wants to live under pure capitalism because it's barbarically fair.

Sounds like the parent/child dynamic.

To sum up: Democrats exclude anyone with opposing ideas. Persecutes outsiders. Republicans include anyone with like-minded ideas. Invites insiders.

At least one director must have red hair and only two are allowed to drive a Tesla.

How did she end his football career?

We will not rest until Trump produces a Birth Certificate proving he's not Russian!

So they're financially liberal, but socially conservative.

I sometimes ask people where to find the inorganic vegetables at the grocery store. I don't they think get my joke.

The current trend is for liberals to smear advertisers reputation so they flee a show/network to save their image. It works because it's easy to switch to "safer" ways to market their products. The left tried boycotting but had neither the will nor participation to effect change. On the other hand, Conservatives just choose to stop watching, causing declines for ESPN, NFL, etc. These networks can't solve the problem of boycotts as easily, so they walk the tight-rope. And since the majority of their industry leans left, it's not like they have much choice in the content, either. They can only hope to enact policies that tone down the liberal rhetoric from their shows, to a level most people can tolerate. That is why I believe it feels like a double standard, because there is one... the left just needs to give their allies an excuse, while the right is fighting the nature of the beast.

The explanation from the studio is that Han is supposed to evolve into the scoundrel and starts the movie as some pathetic rube. If it's supposed to be an evolution, then they only just started him on the path... because of what he did at the end. Personally, I thought he smiled too much. I used to believe that C3P0 and R2D2 were special droids that acted more human, because the movies showed other droids acting more robotic. It wasn't until Rogue one and Solo did this illusion get shattered. Why would anyone create sassy, rebellious droids on purpose? Are they actually a race like transformers?