Counterpoint — he could have changed a man’s life by giving him 10% of his $1.3 million winnings, which is not only custom but the moral, generous and decent thing to do. He could have done the right thing and still pocketed over $1.1 million for winning a fucking golf tournament.

Giving a caddy 10% of winnings isn’t a contractual matter, it’s a fucking moral matter, something that obviously doesn’t mean anything to you, bootlicker. 

Time to update this story, she’s doubling down again: 

I had actually long pictured Yossarian as a younger Clooney, something in line with his roles in Oh Brother and Three Kings, but more frightened of everything. 

I mean, we definitely have interest in their oil, because they have enough of it that it can affect world markets, and until we laid down these sanctions, US refineries used quite a bit of it as feedstock.

How difficult would it be for Instagram to set up a royalty system for shared profit-generated content? I.e. if a mega-account with 10 million followers shares my post and generates $X ad revenue from it, then I would get a check for a percentage of X? Seems like that’d be a lot fairer system, and could actually…

This is ultimately Instagram’s responsibility for continuing to allow thieves to steal content and profit off it without consequence.

That’s household income, not individual. Household income is the combined income of every earner in the home above the age of 15.

There are only two reasons conservatives will talk about fairness:

“The idea of fairness has been promoted in our schools for a long time and we’re starting to see kids who grow up in this notion that fairness above all,” Payne told the hosts.

Think about the kind of person that couldn’t decide who was the worse choice to put in charge of the world’s most powerful military and nuclear arsenal: Hillary Clinton or Donald freaking Trump.

It is always worth pointing out that Steve Schmidt has never been a part of a winning campaign. And he worked for the Bush II administration -- in the SECOND term. 

It paints him a pathological liar, a narcissist who thought he was smarter than everyone else, even though he actually wasn’t that intelligent (he did average in school, he flunked the LSATs, fucked up his own defense, evaded capture more by luck than design, and wasn’t caught only because undeveloped technology at…

Getting racists to vote for you and send you money. 

I mean, that’s fine, but I still don’t understand how that is an improvement on much of anything compared to what we have now. What special stances does this 10% hold that makes it more worthwhile to remain apart from the two larger parties? What makes them the voice of reason? 

But why? What is your income cut-off point for lower tuition? How much will it cost to administrate and police your income qualifications? Most importantly, what social good would this effort produce? 

So you don’t like party affiliations because people affiliated with parties are sometimes mean to you. Sure, that checks with your prior stance about investigating ALL sides of an issue and then making a rational, emotion-free decision.

If Richie Richkid wants to attend a public university on the taxpayers’ dime, I’m fine with that. Public education is a massive social benefit and should be accessible to all, even if it means a small minority of wealthy people are able to take advantage of that.

If you weren’t claiming that self-proclaimed independents were unique in that respect, then why did you write, “As an independent, I look at ALL sides on all issues?”