Name one other instance where the police release all evidence immediately to satiate public demand? Isn’t it routine procedure to hold back evidence pending a full investigation?

At the same time, how did the daughter know the deceased was reading a book when she wasn’t at the scene? That’s never made a lot of sense to me either.

I don’t know the answer to your question but I think the roots of the problem go way beyond the shooting. For example, after the Ferguson debacle, it came to light that the whole town was basically targeted by the local government and ticketed left and right and the whole thing was a scam that the citizens couldn’t…

Isn’t that a common theme, though? Remember all the stories about “Gentle Mike” when Michael Brown was shot? Those popped up immediately and, when all facts were known, it turns out he wasn’t quite the “Gentle Giant” his family and friends made him out to be.

I always feed stray cats and none of them have ever started a riot.

No, not even close. With the Civil Rights movement, you genuinely had people from all demographics working to make things fair, or at least more fair, for minorities. That was because the racists in that situation were just reprehensible people and everyone knew it. It was easy to be pro-Civil Rights because the “bad…

He should have beat that dirty hippie harder.

The Dalai Lama.

Jesus, we’re going to remove words from the language that have been around forever because you’re offended by them? No. We’re not.

Have you seen her lately? She looks like she weighs 70 pounds. She’s not the Angelina of Laura Croft days.

Well, no company is rushing to NC or Indiana because they’re flocking to Kansas instead.

Michael Jackson did it. Why can’t everyone?

I take it your question as to whether he’s mad is purely rhetorical. That said, you’re still wrong because the dude’s fucking furious even contemplating your idea.

You should also read about countries like Norway and Sweden that have done pretty well under Socialist policies.

They are and you get taxed on them. Maybe that’s part of your solution. Let people make $1M a year but don’t tax their dividends. After all, the rich investing in new companies results in new hires, new jobs, etc. and you would not want to stifle that in any way.

I agree that many people would cease working altogether (let alone hard) once they hit the $1M cap.

That avoids the question, though. If “as much as he can” is limited to $1M he’d still be earning “as much as he can”.

Of course not. When Apple went public, it offered shares (essentially loans from investors with the expectation of dividends later) and he didn’t fund the company 100% from his own pocket.

The company isn’t capped, just the individual. So, companies would still have incentive to develop new products under his plan. Arguably, this would mean that there would be far less unemployment and, without question, wealth would be redistributed.

Well, “up to $1M” includes the guy that inherits his Dad’s Terry Bradshaw jersey that’s worth $.01. That’s “up to $1M”. Does that mean the guy is a trust fund baby? Fuck no.