|Old_Zircon - 2017-12-24 |
Appropriate coming from someone who has all the facial features of a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome.
And that's not a body shaming thing, I mean it in all seriousness. George W. Bush had the look, too.
|Maggot Brain - 2017-12-24 |
Is there a word that means both confusing and embarrassing?
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-12-24 |
I have a prepared statement I'd like to read:
"I can't believe I'm standing here. Once I was a little girl, who believed in right and wrong, but that little girl is dying a slow death. Day after day, in some absurd orwellian ritual, I stand here and lie my ass off. Everybody knows it, and then you self-righteous cocksuckers rub my nose in it by forcing me to repeat the same lie over and over. Your eyes see right through me, and it makes me feel dirty. No amount of makeup can cover the damage. I sleep an hour a night, and take three hour showers. There's a flask of vodka behind this podium. I always thought this would be my dream job, but now I hate myself, and I wish I was dead."
Okay, I'll take some questions now?
|MurgatroidMendelbaum - 2017-12-24 |
Sounds like the President received a chain-letter in his e-mail this morning.
|exy - 2017-12-24 |
Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ, Enjoy. Thanks for opening my eyes!
These stars are for her smug, stupid smile.
|jangbones - 2017-12-24 |
this is what conservatives think academic discourse is
|Hooker - 2017-12-24 |
So, at the marginal beer rate (let's say two), there is no charge. The next two beers cost $2 each. The next three cost $5 each. All remaining beer cost $10.
The first four "reporters" stick to two beers, be it because they don't drink much or are broke. $0
The next two "reporters" buy four beers because they're scraping bye or aren't going to go crazy tonight. $8
The next two "reporters" aren't raging alcoholics, so they buy anything between five and seven beers each. $23
The last two "reporters" have serious problems. The first gets 12 beers for a total cost of $69. The second is out of control. He buys 20 beers. $149.
The total cost for the group of ten comes out to $249. The ninth reporter is still marginally sober enough to glance at the bill, then take his phone out and, after lengthy negotiations with Siri, realizes that him and the tenth reporter paid for 88% of the bill. "THITH ITH BULLTHIT!" he manages to get out. Just then, the tenth reporter vomits all over the table - a service which he will not be charged for. All ten reporters consider that to be someone else's problem.
|Meerkat - 2017-12-24 |
Man the intellectual dishonesty is just staggering.
"If we start by paying progressively and then subtract a flat amount instead of a progressive amount, the result isn't progressive any more."
NO FUCKING DUH.
Thank you for listening to this argument that seems to make sense IF YOU ARE A MORON.
|Binro the Heretic - 2017-12-24 |
The rich are always threatening to take their ball & go home if we don't let them score home runs even when they strike out.
(That's how you do an analogy, you fucking dolt.)
|Redford - 2017-12-25 |
The problem is that "The price of beer" isn't going down. It's going up.
So if the price increased to $120, you're saying that it would be okay for the 10th reporter to pay $10 less and the rest of the reporters to pay $30 more combined and then when they called him out on it he said "Don't worry, if I pay less I will have more money left over and at some point I'll treat you to beers I'll give you my word for it" and then a week later at the time he said he'd do that he just suddenly vanished and now no one could have any beer because as it turned out the rich person had actually used the money he saved to buy all the beer and now there was literally no beer for anyone to drink and everyone was very angry but also couldn't do anything about it.
That would be a more accurate analogy to our current situation, I think.
|cognitivedissonance - 2017-12-25 |
CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP you fucking sow
|radiosquido - 2017-12-25 |
Why not look at how much beer each reporter is drinking
If the ten reporters are drinking a total of twenty beers, it would make sense that each reporter drinks two beers and goes home. Instead, we live in a country where the richest reporter drinks over fifteen beers, the second richest reporter drinks two-and-a-half beers, and the other eight reporters split the remaining two-and-a-half beers. The bottom four reporters drink less than one percent of the beers, or, in other words, they share about 2.4 fl. oz. of beer between the four of them. The poorest reporter will be measuring his beer with an eyedropper. It comes time for the bill and the rich fifteen-beer reporter feels it’s unfair that he pays more, so he just walks out on the other nine
Five for evil
|Shanghai Tippytap - 2017-12-25 |
do these people not understand that the top few percent make magnitudes of wealth beyond their fellow countrymen
|discodracula - 2017-12-26 |
I couldn't get through this because of how awful her voice is and how her delivery reminds me of a nervous highschooler giving a class presentation.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|