I wanna play.
Did the name start with Ch and end with ingalera?
If so, welcome to the ever growing movement to ignore asshats trolling here.

Lego is just another corporation making money. Why is a relationship with Shell any different than their other corporate relationships? (The Simpsons, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, The Hobbit, DC Comics, Disney, Marvel, Indiana Jones etc). Because it's good publicity... people don't like "dirty" energy. Shell may be a bunch of assholes, but if you're going to slam the industry Greenpeace, make sure you don't drive a car to work, and you might want to reassess how far you look down your nose at companies like Shell when you send a pollution spewing, fuel sucking Sea Shepherd out to make a TV show, surrounded all day long by polymer materials made mostly from the gas and oil that make your life easier and less costly. Hypocritical bunch of bullying asshats that will fuck anyone over for some publicity.

What a collection of obnoxious, elitist asshats. They've already overcome, they're running the asylum.

and I think the biggest dewd had a UFC t-shirt on. That could have gone wrong... Still, I frickin love that these asshats are being trolled.

You're justifying your inability to spend time with people of other races because of "shared experiences" with other white people? Buuuuuuuull-shiiiiiiiiiit. I've found that I have common ground with just about anyone in the world, just involves me trying to be a good human being and not being afraid of disagreeing or having conversation with people of differing view points. Most of my friends are worlds apart and it doesn't matter. Birds of a feather -- die together. (Whoa, that was way more ominous than intended.)

But I do agree, the banning, and fining of Donald Sterling is akin to punishing someone for thought crime. I don't understand how a comment made in private could be used in such a way. I don't agree with his racist views, or in your justified segregation, but I don't think it's a wise decision, nor a justified one, to punish anyone for having such views or even for expressing them in public, let alone private.

If you don't like someone's you have the right to ignore them and to NOT give them your money, and to convince others to shun that person. But that should NOT givbe any institution the right to go after anything in your estate.

Our justice system is a sham of personal opinion blurred into pseudo civil rights.

Anyway, people shouldn't be afraid to express their views, even if it's offensive to others.

Being stuck between political correct asshats AND conservative christian fuckbags is the real crime -- and I should be able to collect money from racist bigots AND the NAACP. (Just kidding.)

My fave trick to deal with this bullshit on the bike is to touch the brakes in such a way as the light comes on and the bike appears to dive without actually slowing me down. About 90% effective at making tailgaters shit themselves and drop back which combined with a little squirt of power to open the gap usually gets them to stay out of my life. (Maybe not as wise in a poxy car as you don't have the power to get away if you happen across the occasional indignant pshyco)

However there is a special place in hell for people who sit in the outside/passing lane when the inside is clear (which it clearly is in this case).

That said, truck driver totally deserved that. If he was prepared to undertake anyway then he should have just done so to start with instead of tailgating which is far more dangerous.....not to mention leaning out of your vehicle to give someone the finger when approaching a junction!

Justice served...but I suspect the lady's driving/road etiquette sucked here too (hard to say for sure without seeing how it all started, maybe she was just trolling an asshat for "good" reasons we didn't witness).

I get the rage being stuck behind slow lane hoggers too, but tailgating is almost always counter productive. If nothing else it tends to make people (myself included) slow down. Undertake swiftly and safely (if possible) or suck it up!

For example?
In what context could that question be considered sensible?

Bill - "What if some idiot would ask you a question Now, I know you probably though about this very much....."
That's the only possible excuse I can come up for this asshat.

One thing I read -- a police officer commenting on the interrogation said -- one thing that this asshat and Zimmerman had in common was a deep understanding of the Stand Your Ground Law.

Draw your own conclusions about what this means about premeditation when it comes to "self defense."

The law has gotta go is right.

Hey! I never said he didn't have the right to be a troll. This is America, and you have the right to hate whoever the f*ck you want! You also have the right to be as stupidly or disingenuously wrong and to intentionally create untenable situations to milk in your favor (at someone else's expense). I have the right to say so and call you an asshat if I think you are one(especially if I have evidence to back me up).
My racist horse is fairly short.
I found his ranting hilarious and only slightly offending...does that somehow mean I can't call it race baiting if that's what I think it is? Perhaps it was unintentional, but I still say it was Samuel that jumped to racism, not the 'reporter' that said something racist.
SAMUEL DID 2 SUPERBOWL COMMERCIALS that he 'forgot' about...for Marvel. It was his answer "What commercial" that threw the host. He should have simply answered that question instead of looking stupidly offstage, but there was an obvious answer. Terrible host+terrible guest=ridiculous race baiting clip.
If I have the opportunity to crap on an obvious (to me) race baiter, why shouldn't I? To make race baiters feel better? Fuck them dude! ;-)
Bwaaahaahaahaa! Mainstream bullshitter! I may be a bullshitter, but buddy I'm so far from main stream I'm in the desert. ;-}
If you have to create the racism you're complaining about, you're the racist and a problem, funny or not, white or black, even if you're doing it for 'entertainment' or by mistake. That's all.

Yeah, I say F You Jackson...you're trolling in search of 'racism' to ridicule, but you forgot you DID a SUPERBOWL COMMERCIAL, for MARVEL. (EDIT:at least 2 Super bowl commercials) Who's the asshat here? The one who asked a reasonable question, then let his guest ridicule and lambast him for the GUEST'S misunderstanding, or the guest that forgot he did a commercial so incorrectly he accused the reporter of forgetting who the guest is, and of being racist.
Once again, F you Jackson...where's the public apology? This is 100% your bad and your mistake.

I can never fathom why descendants of slaves aren't also incredibly pissed off at Africans. It was mostly Africans that captured, then sold them into slavery. Why do the one's that captured and sold them get a free pass, but the one's that bought them (and their descendants) are unforgiveable asshats for eternity? I just don't understand (and I'm not being silly or joking, I really don't get it).
I also have to agree, living in the past means you can't move on to the future. I feel it would be beneficial to forgive the dead their crimes, but not forget. I don't feel like this has happened to a large degree. When you hold onto anger, it usually only hurts yourself, the one's you're angry with usually don't know and often wouldn't care if they knew.
This is a different discussion from entrenched racism, which seems to be on the decline but is not yet absent. Sadly, it does seem that racism is on the rise and considered acceptable in much of the black community, and often excused with the ridiculous sentiment 'black people CAN'T be racist' which I like to counter with 'why not, they have a race don't they?'. (similar to the reply to 'you can't hit a girl in the face') :-}

Give me a break.

An idiot's guide to America: Get an audience. Once you have an audience:

1> Act like an asshat
2> ???
3> Profit.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

I disagree, it absolutely was directed at me and he did quote me (he just didn't use the 'quote' button this time), please read it again...
chingalera said:
(a sate of permanent willful ignorance) it's 'state' and maybe, check a fucking mirror??
Totally directed at me in a snide attempt to disrespectfully deride me for a typing mistake he assumed I made and for being permanently willfully ignorant. That's his MO, derision and disrespect peppered with abusive overuse of a thesaurus. His argument style is mindless repetition of insults and complaint and derision of every topic and group and most individuals with no self awareness whatsoever. He repeatedly makes the same mistaken assumptions, even when corrected, because they support his insanity and give him a straw man to fight. He viciously attacks 'A or B' arguments that come from his own mind and not from the one's he attacks. I'm done with it. I can only remind him of the facts and my positions so many times before it's tiring in the extreme and my fault for doing it to myself.
I would say the pastor is an asshat because he made his own insane assumptions based on willful misunderstanding and is convincing others to think the same kind of BS...it has little to do with religion in the final analysis for me, it's about making up BS and getting others to believe it as fact, usually to get them to act as one wants them to. The religious don't have a monopoly on this behavior, it is also not reserved for religious goals, but religions and the religious are all too well practiced at it.