mechoman444

It wouldn’t matter if she was buck naked in the middle of Octoberfest no one has the right to touch anyone without their consent.

Okay, just a couple of details here I’d like to put out in the open.

First and foremost, I don’t like billionaires. I think they should all have their wealth stripped down until they’re under a billion dollars. There is no reason why billionaires should exist. That’s such an incredibly large number that our human brains don’t even really understand the difference between a million, 100 million, and a billion. It’s visually difficult to even represent. So as far as I’m concerned, the sooner these guys can get their wealth back down to a more reasonable level, the better it is for the world in general.

Second, I really like Proposition 40. It’s got some real teeth to it. The proposition doesn’t simply charge taxes on revenue that a billionaire produces; it charges the tax against their net worth, which I think is absolutely fantastic because it actually targets accumulated wealth.

And that’s important because billionaires don’t have billions of dollars sitting around in a checking account. They may have significantly less than even a billion dollars in liquid cash. If Mr. Sergey Brin is worth $250 billion, for example, a 5% wealth tax would represent roughly $12.5 billion. He’s going to have to come up with that money somehow. He can cash out assets, borrow against them, sell investments, or use other sources of liquidity. The proposition also provides for payment over a period of up to five years, although doing so comes with additional charges.

That’s going to be a real interruption for billionaires, and I absolutely love that aspect of it. These people have accumulated enormous amounts of wealth while the rest of us live in an economy where ordinary people are taxed on their income, their purchases, their property, and virtually everything else they do.

For decades, America’s tax system has allowed enormous fortunes to accumulate largely through appreciating assets rather than ordinary taxable income. Billionaires can therefore become dramatically wealthier without necessarily realizing that wealth as conventional income.

Good on California for proposing a tax on extreme wealth that actually has the potential to put a dent in those fortunes.

Mind you, these billionaires are ultimately trying to avoid what amounts to superficial damage to their coffers. Five percent of a $250 billion fortune is still an enormous amount of money, but it leaves $237.5 billion behind. And if their assets continue appreciating, they can potentially recover that lost wealth relatively quickly.

I’m not saying 5% is going to destroy these people. It won’t. But that’s exactly why I think it’s a good step. It’s a real tax on accumulated wealth, it actually requires the ultra-wealthy to part with a meaningful amount of money, and it demonstrates that enormous fortunes aren’t necessarily untouchable simply because the wealth isn’t sitting in a bank account.

Of course because this is the pressing issue of the new millennium. Everyone sitting around going man Nixon really got the short end of the stick.

No no it’s just a conservative part the fact that you’re a woman has nothing to do with anything.

No. That is an extremely common misconception that people try to argue for on this platform, but it is ultimately incorrect.

Virtually any form of government can incorporate things like public transportation, state-run utilities, and stronger protections for unions. None of those things, by themselves, make a system socialist.

Socialism is specifically an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively, either by the public or by the workers themselves.

What you’re describing are social welfare programs. The word “social” is one of those confusing and often misused words in the English language. Different terms can sound almost identical while referring to fundamentally different concepts. Social welfare is not socialism, even though the two terms sound similar.

Not sure what to think about this… On one hand good. On the other hand the system that deported him is the product of pure evil.

Then again watching them eat each other alive is amusing in its own right.

Shit dress them up in Walmart tactical gear give them some cheapo balaclava call them ice and tell the fucker they’re there to take them to an award ceremony… Then black bag him in the back of the van.

Jeez… It is amazing how I can learn about a new low these people can reach.

It’s books for children.

Extradite? We’re in the same country. Just go freaking pick him up.

Well… That was quick.

Doris Miller is such a bad ass name.

Trump, however, is not.

Ya… And?

deleted by creator

Nothing like a little bit of projection!

I want handjobs oral sex and anal sex to be illegal because I love them so so much.

What the hell does testosterone have to do with anything? It’s a hormone, just like any other in the human body. Both men and women produce it. It needs to stay within a healthy range for the body to function properly. Too much is harmful, just as too little is.

100% agree.

Not what I mean. But yes. You are absolutely correct.

Okay, fine. Yes, those are diseases that are monitored. But explosive diarrhea is a symptom, not a disease. Sometimes people just get the runs for any number of reasons.

That’s why saying there was an increase in “explosive diarrhea” sounds odd. Public health agencies generally monitor diseases that cause diarrhea, not the symptom itself in isolation.

It’s like saying there was an increase in fevers during the height of COVID, or a spike in people feeling pain after breaking a bone. Those are symptoms of underlying conditions, not the thing that’s actually being tracked.

Maybe I’m missing some context, but the wording still strikes me as strange.

I’m sorry. Is there some kind of organization or mechanism that monitors specifically explosive diarrhea?

The issue is that what is presented as a single rule is actually several different rules crammed into one sentence. It strings together multiple distinct ideas with commas, making it unclear where one prohibition ends and another begins. If each of those ideas is meant to stand on its own, they should be written as separate rules rather than bundled together under a single heading.

Secondly, “celebrating death” is an extremely vague concept. Many cultures celebrate death in one form or another. Hindus, for example, have traditions that celebrate the passage into the next life. Creole culture also has a long history of turning funerals into communal celebrations.

Moreover, what exactly constitutes a celebration of death? If someone feels happy that a particular person has died, they are not necessarily celebrating death itself. They are simply acknowledging that someone they disliked is gone and, in their view, that the world is objectively better off as a result.

So if I say, “I am happy that so-and-so died,” that is not, in and of itself, a morally reprehensible statement. It merely expresses an individual’s emotions. No one is obligated to like another person or to feel sadness when they die. Death itself is not a moral act; the act of taking a life is. In this case, the individual died naturally rather than as the result of anyone’s actions.

As a result, I see no compelling reason why death itself should never be celebrated, whether the sentiment is meant to admonish the deceased or to honor them.