>> ^NetRunner:

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.
Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.
I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?
As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...


That is why I hate talking via forums, if you try and condense what you want to say so it isn't so verbose, you get misunderstood. Not all systems are the same. The US system is NOT like the Ethiopian system in that government comes second, and people come first when rights are concerned. Or more to say, individuals are first, and groups second. I thought this would be clear, it apparently isn't. The Indians are all dead, that is how the story goes, can't change it. They weren't citizens anyway, nor were their property claims recognized. I didn't mean states "don't" own property, I was saying the idea when it comes down to a system that puts the individual first, it doesn't make since. SO it wasn't a case of redistribution in the since that is always meant, the relocation of citizens to citizens, but distribution of booty.

I think the least conflicting way of property rights, that also avails itself to massive wealth creations, and by consequence, hording, is that of initial claim. Just as one makes a claim to the first position in line at the post office. It is the most clearly understood universally that first come, first served. It results in unfairnesses at times, but dealing with those as they come seems like a better solution than having to make a moral derision on every land redistribution. First rights is the only means of rights language that seems to make since with property in the long term that I have been exposed to. I have tried several other models, but they all seem to break or be to arbitrary.

AFAIK, KK has a big booty. That's it.

Meanwhile, Paris H. did it with NO booty. She had to WORK for everything she has! Except the hotel empire.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Who is Kim Kardashian anyway? Some lawyer's daughter who was on a reality show? Has she ever accomplished anything worthwhile or is she just another spoiled rich girl who has never had to work a day in her life?

>> ^blankfist:

Also this...



I do, however, support "getting the sweet booty".

S.T.B. - Stab This Bitch
S.T.B. - Shit The Bed
S.T.B. - Super Tight Booty
S.T.B. - Sifters Toke Bongs...

did that child really say that everyone was checkin out her bootie?

I fap'ed to this wonderful Welsh booty a decade ago, when I saw Entrapment. Still, Vincent Cassel is the man you want if a field of lasers has to be negotiated.

That was a healthy laugh. The long pause followed by the booty dance is brilliant.

thanks again for the fantastic contest - the package here just a couple days after this message, incredible

In reply to this comment by dag:
Hiya Paul - send us your address and we'll get your booty shipped to you right quick. Congrats!

1. Tower in Barrens being toppled.
2. Statue at Booty Bay about to eat a giant wave.
3. More Barrens destruction with a chasm opening.
4. Blimp crash in Durotar.
5. Thousand Needles (which is below sea level) having the ocean flow in between the pillars of rock.
6. Unknown Mountain Range... could be near Iron Forge.
7. Docks in Darkshore at Auberdine.
8. The Dam above the Wetlands at Loch Modan.
9. Stormwind.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hiya Paul - send us your address and we'll get your booty shipped to you right quick. Congrats!

professional... booty.

upvoting from memory....why can't a heterosexual guy tell a heterosexual guy he thinks his booty is fly?

Actually, DFT, if you allow me a tangent. I don't deny our communal urges at all. I understand that's a primal instinct that is meant to ensure our survival as a species. If you didn't get along with the tribe, you were either killed or banished (which surely meant you would die without the protection of the tribe).

There's also downsides to this communal desire. Think about this. When one tribe ran across another tribe, they were not primally driven to coexist but rather to murder them and take their women as booty, right? That, or just run from the other tribe. That's because it's also instinctual to identify with a social community with specific identifiable similarities. That can mean race, class, geographical location, belief systems, etc. Would you agree? This is where nationalism and racism and any other type of segregational thought comes from.

So, when one tribe met another tribe, they would instantly recognize a difference in the other tribe whether that be race or simply that they were not part of their tribe (geographical location). That difference sparked a primal fear, and that primal fear is a necessary survival mechanism. I mean, no species would last very long if it didn't have a fear of that which is different. A mouse should not instinctively suspect the best of a cat's intentions.

So, in that way, I think our primal instincts are detrimental to our survival today, because we have a society in which we don't need to fear our neighbor as much as primitive man needed. This is why I believe in individualism, because we don't need to live in such fear of our neighbors anymore. We can now work to persuade people to "judge a man by the content of his character, not by his..." geographical location, belief system, race, class, etc.

Tangent over.

Cheers...You kick booty!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
there. I downvoted your PQ, those videos will never get out now.

well because personally I cant go and rail on my "brother in law " whatever the fuck that is. Some guy who married my sister. Aint no brother of mine. heh. But you are right, the parents are completely need a finger wagged at them and "for shame for shame " being said. I really have a problem with girls acting like whores, when I was in high school in 1996-2000, thats when the zoologist started shifting, first it was the skin tight black pants with or without the flared ankles, and then It just progressed from their. Teens now dress like wannabe strippers and It pisses me the hell off that parents allow the young ones to listen to lady gaga and beyonce and all this other tripe that passes for music. Those girls are nothing close to role models for children.


I wish I had a wooden train whistle, I would love to blow my horn, WHEWWWWWW WHEWWWWWWWW !

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
How about beating the fuck out of the parents? I saw an interview with one dad and he didn't see a single problem with it. I heard someone give the excuse of "oh, well the costume is designed so that the judges can more clearly see the lines of movement blah blah blah" So why the fuck can these girls NOT wear a fucking leotard instead? something a little less sexually charged than a two piece that looks like it came off the design table of Victoria's secret? At the VERY least, why isn't the top piece more covering? that thing is barely thicker than duct tape. Might as well have used pasties. Not to mention the knee-high fuck-me boots.

And that doesn't even cover the dance moves. Any instant you have booty-popping in a dance routine, an 8 year old should NOT be doing it.