The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
What Mandami has done so far doesn't rise to the level of a threat. The article says he's "discussing" it. If these discussions actually happen, his law department will tell him "LOL no you can't do that". It's just hot air until he gives the order. And unless he has some handpicked fanatics in the NYPD, NYPD won't challenge the Secret Service even if he does.
First of all, one billionaire has little to no influence on other billionaires. Bloomberg can't make Thiel change his public behavior nor vice-versa.
As for a), what's the point of a billionaire if you can neither do big things nor enjoy personal luxuries (like renting Venice for your wedding)? And this doesn't actually help; laws directed at billionaires will wreck under-the-radar billionaires (and millionaires, and probably hundred-thousandaires) as well as ostentatious ones.
I can't buy so much as a pellet gun. Because the most pro-gun Supreme Court in 100 years still allows prior restraint, with few limits on said restraint; you need state permission to buy a gun. So all the "winning" looks like "nothing" from my perspective. When I can purchase a gun and ammo, strap it on, and cross the Hudson with it, without violating any laws, maybe then I'll think gun rights are real. Until then, there is no right to keep and bear arms, only a privilege for the elect.
Silencers are now untaxed but the NFA paperwork (and presumably the Fourth Amendment waiver they swear isn't there) is still in effect. And of course they're banned in blue states.
I don't move because of family reasons.
Nobody wants that. Trump is an elitist as well. So is Vance, as Hillbilly Elegy proves (you can't write such a book without looking down). Obviously Rubio is. They're all satisfied with "You have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you can own or carry a gun"
The Supreme Court (except Cranky Clarence) are elitists; they don't want the population to have guns. But the right to keep and bear arms is an important point on the right side of their constitutional debate society. So they deliberately allow lower and state courts to reduce pro-gun decisions to nullities.
You are your brother's keeper, whether you like it or not.
That's not what Genesis says. Upon being questioned as to his brother's whereabouts, Cain rhetorically asks God whether he is his brother's keeper, in a manner which indicates he knows the answer is "no". God doesn't answer the question, he calls Cain on his disingenuousness and tells him he knows damn well he killed his brother.
No, I am not my brother's keeper. I am certainly not the keeper of random strangers. I'm certainly not responsible for the actions of other 'like me'; if they do something that I did not do, they are clearly not 'like me' in the relevant sense.
It's not the underclass using Doordash.
There is no "M" in FAANG.
Boomers were the kids being bussed, (and those being bussed to) not the parents. Who was, like, 8-17 years old in the early-mid 1970s? Boomers, obviously.
By current Z and Alpha standards, yes. By standard nomenclature, no, those were mostly X.
Now the "Doordash" argument. You can disparage it, but the math still maths.
I liked the "Sex in the City" version; it turns out Carrie Bradshaw had spent enough on shoes that if she hadn't, she would have had a down payment for her apartment. Doordash is cheaper than designer shoes, but bought more often so it's the same order of magnitude.
Meanwhile, in the Emperor's own words, "Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station"
Don't forget Kim Philby, possibly the inspiration for Conquest's Second (or Third) law -- "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."
Once an attorney is involved, the economics of a small venture turn infeasible very quickly.
In the case of Communists, I only have to look so far as to observe their rhetoric.
The slippery slope is often a disguised reductio. The argument is for B, because of principle A. The person making the slippery slope argument points out that principle A also supports actions C, D, E, and so on through Z which are basically extensions of B.
Is the slippery slope really a fallacy?
Eugene Volokh wrote a paper arguing how the answer could be no.
I would say that not only is it not a fallacy but many slopes are slippery. If A->B and A->C and A->D and so on to A->Z, you cannot consistently support A and oppose Z... and it is likely that eventually you will not.
Most people never would be that dumb. With this kind of scam, as soon as the mark shows too much awareness, the con moves on to the next mark.
Charlotte Cowles
Her errors were not financial. Oddly, they were social. She trusted a random cold caller who had some of her easiest-stolen personal information and was running a con.
There have been communitarian Communists, but nearly all modern Communists are out for themselves. They're not looking forward to the glorious future where we all pull together; they're looking to the glorious feast they would like to make for themselves of "the rich".
With or without a nuke, Iran is not an existential threat to the United States. However, the fallout (more figurative than literal, but some literal) from the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv would be rather ugly, compared to the current war.
which will potentially prevent Iran from making Nukes.
Yeah, that's the only goal potentially making the war worth fighting. But it IS a rather big deal.
The open daytime transits in the past few weeks were more of a show of force rather than a necessity to transport oil.
And also a chance to give Iran a chance to prove that it would adhere to a settlement by not shooting at them. Iran proved the opposite.
The margarine I use definitely claims it's butter. (It's not butter. It contains butter. I don't care what the USDA says)
- Prev
- Next

This could apply to any culture war post.
Abandoning the field is a sure way to let your opponents succeed in whatever they're doing. And if you think the culture war is inconsequential, this is a strange place to be posting.
More options
Context Copy link