Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police

[Ray From Cleveland]

The funny thing is Ray, you say "No, it's not the same thing" then post a dictionary definition which proves it is the same.

So you fail to show me where they are the same, and yet claim they are. So let's try this again: show me the definitions of attack and punishment that are the same.

As a verb it can mean many things. "to set upon in a forceful.... way", so, if the govt sets upon someone forcefully, it's an attack. Or violently, it's an attack, are you telling me that an execution isn't violent? Or using riot police to attack protesters isn't an attack?

It isn't the same. A prisoner is walked down "calmly" to the execution site, and is then executed. There is nothing violent about it. They didn't march into his cell, start beating him on the head with a club, and dragged him to the execution chamber.

I'm not sure why you're asking me what the similarities are between punishment and attack. Where did this pop into your head that I had said they're the same thing?

What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

The US didn't go to Iraq for terror? Well, I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are plenty of issues which I could point to that amount to terror. But this isn't the topic here. The topic is that war is terror. That getting away from terrorism with war is almost impossible. Who isn't terrified of war?

Being terrified of war and terrorism are not the same thing. If that were so, every war would be labeled terrorism.

Terrorism is inflicting terror into a group of people. It's the only goal of terrorism. If I get an audit from the IRS, I'm terrified of the notice, but that does not mean the IRS is terrorizing me.

So, I see you agree with me on the whole punishment thing then? Seeing as all your examples are PROOF that people who are not the govt can hand out punishment.

Physical punishment. Why can't you separate the two? If I leave the bar and some patron I was arguing with is smashing the windows of my car, I do not have the legal right to place him in handcuffs and lock him in a room where he cannot escape. That is physical punishment and not sanctioned by our laws or people. Only a police officer can do that.

Murdering somebody is a physical punishment. Only authorities have the legal right to physically punish somebody. So I don't agree with you on anything you said.

Ray, the whole point of me talking about super PACs is that they are impossible to prove corruption. And then you tell me that I don't have proof of this corruption. Are you fucking serious? Do you not get ANYTHING I am telling you?

What you are telling me is that there is corruption in PAC's, but cannot prove what you said. So yes, I am serious. If I tell you Obama was on the Iran payroll, but can't prove he received any money from Iran, does that mean he was getting money from Iran even though I can't prove it; only because I say he did?

Because just about everything you have replied to in your post is a tangent of what is being spoken about, it's not the topic, it's got nothing to do with the topic, except the part of the dictionary definition, and that is just laughable that you can provide evidence that destroys your own argument.

Really? So show me this evidence you speak of that destroys my argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing is Ray, you say "No, it's not the same thing" then post a dictionary definition which proves it is the same.

So you fail to show me where they are the same, and yet claim they are. So let's try this again: show me the definitions of attack and punishment that are the same.

As a verb it can mean many things. "to set upon in a forceful.... way", so, if the govt sets upon someone forcefully, it's an attack. Or violently, it's an attack, are you telling me that an execution isn't violent? Or using riot police to attack protesters isn't an attack?

It isn't the same. A prisoner is walked down "calmly" to the execution site, and is then executed. There is nothing violent about it. They didn't march into his cell, start beating him on the head with a club, and dragged him to the execution chamber.

I'm not sure why you're asking me what the similarities are between punishment and attack. Where did this pop into your head that I had said they're the same thing?

What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

The US didn't go to Iraq for terror? Well, I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are plenty of issues which I could point to that amount to terror. But this isn't the topic here. The topic is that war is terror. That getting away from terrorism with war is almost impossible. Who isn't terrified of war?

Being terrified of war and terrorism are not the same thing. If that were so, every war would be labeled terrorism.

Terrorism is inflicting terror into a group of people. It's the only goal of terrorism. If I get an audit from the IRS, I'm terrified of the notice, but that does not mean the IRS is terrorizing me.

So, I see you agree with me on the whole punishment thing then? Seeing as all your examples are PROOF that people who are not the govt can hand out punishment.

Physical punishment. Why can't you separate the two? If I leave the bar and some patron I was arguing with is smashing the windows of my car, I do not have the legal right to place him in handcuffs and lock him in a room where he cannot escape. That is physical punishment and not sanctioned by our laws or people. Only a police officer can do that.

Murdering somebody is a physical punishment. Only authorities have the legal right to physically punish somebody. So I don't agree with you on anything you said.

Ray, the whole point of me talking about super PACs is that they are impossible to prove corruption. And then you tell me that I don't have proof of this corruption. Are you fucking serious? Do you not get ANYTHING I am telling you?

What you are telling me is that there is corruption in PAC's, but cannot prove what you said. So yes, I am serious. If I tell you Obama was on the Iran payroll, but can't prove he received any money from Iran, does that mean he was getting money from Iran even though I can't prove it; only because I say he did?

Because just about everything you have replied to in your post is a tangent of what is being spoken about, it's not the topic, it's got nothing to do with the topic, except the part of the dictionary definition, and that is just laughable that you can provide evidence that destroys your own argument.

Really? So show me this evidence you speak of that destroys my argument.

No, I didn't tell you they were the same and I explained this to you in the post you've just replied to.

Fuck it, I can't be bothered with this nonsense Ray.

 

[JoeB131]

If they did not produce 8 figures in value, the company would not pay them 8 figures in salary.

The problem with you wealth haters is you watch too many movies. CEO's are not people that have large breasted secretaries and a putting green in their office. They are hired and fired all the time. They have to relocate constantly and if not, out of town on business away from their families.

Yes, they are hired and fired and get big old golden parachutes when the latter happens.

But no, when the CEO of GM was making 12 million a year and he ran the company so badly the government had to bail it out, he wasn't worth 8 figures

here's the thing. European and Japanese companies don't pay their CEO's that kind of compensation, and their companies do better than ours.

CEO's are contract people just like actors, sports figures and musicians. They are paid by past performances. If a well known actress stars in a crappy movie, she still gets her 13 million dollars even if the movie is a flop. It's a risk Hollywood takes on her because of her ability in the past to sell movies.

Guy, why do you repeat that same argument? I have never bought a product because of a CEO. I've occasionally refused to buy a product if I thought the company's CEO was a douche-bag. On the other hand, people go to a game or movie because they specifically want to see that person.

I don't know about where you live, but garbage men don't make crap here, and they certainly don't make near what people with an advanced education make.

In Chicago, they make about 70K a year. And that's not including the OT they get when we have a tough winter and they put in extra hours driving snow plows.

Society doesn't decide on what to pay a garbage man, the company he works for does, unless Chicago is so behind the times the city still has garbage men. Here, companies subcontract work from cities and they perform the job. Automation is replacing garbage men anyway to cut costs. The company provides us with garbage containers that are grabbed by the truck with claws and dumps the garbage into the truck. It's a one man operation.

Thanks, dummy, you've hit on the problem. When everything is automated, what are any of us going to do for a living?

 

[Conservative65]

Because you claim context makes a difference here doesn't mean it does.

Um, actually, it does.. Sorry you are too stupid to get that, but you are a very dumb person.

I understand you posted a claim about your resume compared to mine and refused to show anything supporting that claim. When I gave you an opportunity to do it, you ran like a coward.

I didn't have to. Anyone who reads your posts can tell you are not well educated and probably have anger management issues.

More excuses from a coward unwilling to prove a claim he made. You've done everything but back up your claim. Why aren't you man enough to do it? It's quite clear to everyone on here that you're a coward.

I wouldn't expect someone stupid enough to vote for a black guy thinking being black meant qualified to understand how reality works with TERMS.

 

[Conservative65]

If they did not produce 8 figures in value, the company would not pay them 8 figures in salary.

The problem with you wealth haters is you watch too many movies. CEO's are not people that have large breasted secretaries and a putting green in their office. They are hired and fired all the time. They have to relocate constantly and if not, out of town on business away from their families.

Yes, they are hired and fired and get big old golden parachutes when the latter happens.

But no, when the CEO of GM was making 12 million a year and he ran the company so badly the government had to bail it out, he wasn't worth 8 figures

here's the thing. European and Japanese companies don't pay their CEO's that kind of compensation, and their companies do better than ours.

CEO's are contract people just like actors, sports figures and musicians. They are paid by past performances. If a well known actress stars in a crappy movie, she still gets her 13 million dollars even if the movie is a flop. It's a risk Hollywood takes on her because of her ability in the past to sell movies.

Guy, why do you repeat that same argument? I have never bought a product because of a CEO. I've occasionally refused to buy a product if I thought the company's CEO was a douche-bag. On the other hand, people go to a game or movie because they specifically want to see that person.

I don't know about where you live, but garbage men don't make crap here, and they certainly don't make near what people with an advanced education make.

In Chicago, they make about 70K a year. And that's not including the OT they get when we have a tough winter and they put in extra hours driving snow plows.

Society doesn't decide on what to pay a garbage man, the company he works for does, unless Chicago is so behind the times the city still has garbage men. Here, companies subcontract work from cities and they perform the job. Automation is replacing garbage men anyway to cut costs. The company provides us with garbage containers that are grabbed by the truck with claws and dumps the garbage into the truck. It's a one man operation.

Thanks, dummy, you've hit on the problem. When everything is automated, what are any of us going to do for a living?

Says the one that has admitted more than one business he worked for shut down while he was working for them. You're just a bad employee Joe and you've caused businesses to close because of it.

 

[JoeB131]

More excuses from a coward unwilling to prove a claim he made. You've done everything but back up your claim. Why aren't you man enough to do it? It's quite clear to everyone on here that you're a coward.

I don't have to back up my claim. Everyone who reads our conversations can tell who is better educated and better adjusted.

Says the one that has admitted more than one business he worked for shut down while he was working for them. You're just a bad employee Joe and you've caused businesses to close because of it.

Actually, they closed down because the guys who paid themselves seven figure salaries and got high on the smell of their own flatulence made awful decisions.

"Let's invest in a new building even though profits have been declinng for the last year and our biggest contract is up!"

 

[Conservative65]

More excuses from a coward unwilling to prove a claim he made. You've done everything but back up your claim. Why aren't you man enough to do it? It's quite clear to everyone on here that you're a coward.

I don't have to back up my claim. Everyone who reads our conversations can tell who is better educated and better adjusted.

Says the one that has admitted more than one business he worked for shut down while he was working for them. You're just a bad employee Joe and you've caused businesses to close because of it.

Actually, they closed down because the guys who paid themselves seven figure salaries and got high on the smell of their own flatulence made awful decisions.

"Let's invest in a new building even though profits have been declinng for the last year and our biggest contract is up!"

Anyone on here can read where you claimed your RESUME was better and how you refuse to show it to back up that claim. Everyone that reads our conversations see you as a coward. Someone that won't act like a man and do what a man would do to prove a claim. The offer stands. You'll hide behind something to avoid being a man.

They did make awful decisions. They hired YOU. I already explained that to you.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone on here can read where you claimed your RESUME was better and how you refuse to show it to back up that claim. Everyone that reads our conversations see you as a coward. Someone that won't act like a man and do what a man would do to prove a claim. The offer stands. You'll hide behind something to avoid being a man.

It would be against the rules of the board to reveal private information, and you k now it... but never mind.

They did make awful decisions. They hired YOU. I already explained that to you.

Naw, I was usually the guy putting off the effects of their bad decisions by finding cost savings. But I could only do so much.

 

[Conservative65]

Anyone on here can read where you claimed your RESUME was better and how you refuse to show it to back up that claim. Everyone that reads our conversations see you as a coward. Someone that won't act like a man and do what a man would do to prove a claim. The offer stands. You'll hide behind something to avoid being a man.

It would be against the rules of the board to reveal private information, and you k now it... but never mind.

They did make awful decisions. They hired YOU. I already explained that to you.

Naw, I was usually the guy putting off the effects of their bad decisions by finding cost savings. But I could only do so much.

Only if I revealed yours or vice versa. You can reveal anything about yourself you want. However, the offer I made you doesn't involve doing it on this forum.

Naw, that's what you say. What we have is you admitting businesses that were doing well closed AFTER hiring you.

 

[JoeB131]

Is it still throwing a hissy?

Did you make an offer? Anyway, again, you are kind of a psycho who has been banned from this board several times for threatening people with violence. Why in God's name would I give you my personal information?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It would be against the rules of the board to reveal private information, and you k now it... but never mind.

So why not use private messaging which this forum has?

Naw, I was usually the guy putting off the effects of their bad decisions by finding cost savings. But I could only do so much.

Excuses, excuses....... Sound familiar?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, they are hired and fired and get big old golden parachutes when the latter happens.

But no, when the CEO of GM was making 12 million a year and he ran the company so badly the government had to bail it out, he wasn't worth 8 figures

here's the thing. European and Japanese companies don't pay their CEO's that kind of compensation, and their companies do better than ours.

The government did not have to bail them out. They could have filed for bankruptcy, had a judge settle financial matters, and rebuild to be a better company.

Japanese companies are not union either.....at least in the US. I am a Toyota owner because they make better vehicles--not because of what they pay their CEO's. Instead of investing in ridiculous wages and benefits for their employees, they use that money for better engineering and better quality parts. That's why Toyota owners get a 7 year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty compared to US cars that get a 30,000 mile 3 year bumper to bumper warranty.

Guy, why do you repeat that same argument? I have never bought a product because of a CEO. I've occasionally refused to buy a product if I thought the company's CEO was a douche-bag. On the other hand, people go to a game or movie because they specifically want to see that person.

So WTF does that have to do with what I said? I'm merely pointing out to you how contract jobs work. You are paid X amount of money regardless of your current performance. In that regard, CEO's are no different than star pitchers or quarterbacks.

In Chicago, they make about 70K a year. And that's not including the OT they get when we have a tough winter and they put in extra hours driving snow plows.

So what you're saying is Chicago is stupid enough to waste taxpayer dollars for people to do a menial job. No wonder your cost of living is so high there.

Thanks, dummy, you've hit on the problem. When everything is automated, what are any of us going to do for a living?

I don't know and that was not the point. When labor demands too much money to perform certain jobs, smart investors replace humans with machines. But the liberal solution is to force employers to pay humans more. How that makes any sense I do not know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The funny thing is Ray, you say "No, it's not the same thing" then post a dictionary definition which proves it is the same.

So you fail to show me where they are the same, and yet claim they are. So let's try this again: show me the definitions of attack and punishment that are the same.

As a verb it can mean many things. "to set upon in a forceful.... way", so, if the govt sets upon someone forcefully, it's an attack. Or violently, it's an attack, are you telling me that an execution isn't violent? Or using riot police to attack protesters isn't an attack?

It isn't the same. A prisoner is walked down "calmly" to the execution site, and is then executed. There is nothing violent about it. They didn't march into his cell, start beating him on the head with a club, and dragged him to the execution chamber.

I'm not sure why you're asking me what the similarities are between punishment and attack. Where did this pop into your head that I had said they're the same thing?

What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

The US didn't go to Iraq for terror? Well, I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are plenty of issues which I could point to that amount to terror. But this isn't the topic here. The topic is that war is terror. That getting away from terrorism with war is almost impossible. Who isn't terrified of war?

Being terrified of war and terrorism are not the same thing. If that were so, every war would be labeled terrorism.

Terrorism is inflicting terror into a group of people. It's the only goal of terrorism. If I get an audit from the IRS, I'm terrified of the notice, but that does not mean the IRS is terrorizing me.

So, I see you agree with me on the whole punishment thing then? Seeing as all your examples are PROOF that people who are not the govt can hand out punishment.

Physical punishment. Why can't you separate the two? If I leave the bar and some patron I was arguing with is smashing the windows of my car, I do not have the legal right to place him in handcuffs and lock him in a room where he cannot escape. That is physical punishment and not sanctioned by our laws or people. Only a police officer can do that.

Murdering somebody is a physical punishment. Only authorities have the legal right to physically punish somebody. So I don't agree with you on anything you said.

Ray, the whole point of me talking about super PACs is that they are impossible to prove corruption. And then you tell me that I don't have proof of this corruption. Are you fucking serious? Do you not get ANYTHING I am telling you?

What you are telling me is that there is corruption in PAC's, but cannot prove what you said. So yes, I am serious. If I tell you Obama was on the Iran payroll, but can't prove he received any money from Iran, does that mean he was getting money from Iran even though I can't prove it; only because I say he did?

Because just about everything you have replied to in your post is a tangent of what is being spoken about, it's not the topic, it's got nothing to do with the topic, except the part of the dictionary definition, and that is just laughable that you can provide evidence that destroys your own argument.

Really? So show me this evidence you speak of that destroys my argument.

No, I didn't tell you they were the same and I explained this to you in the post you've just replied to.

Fuck it, I can't be bothered with this nonsense Ray.

Yes you did say they were the same. You said they were both attacks. If they are both attacks according to you, how are they not the same?

 

[JoeB131]

So why not use private messaging which this forum has?

because he's a crazy person who has been banned from this forum for threatening other members with violence.

Japanese companies are not union either.....at least in the US. I am a Toyota owner because they make better vehicles--not because of what they pay their CEO's. Instead of investing in ridiculous wages and benefits for their employees, they use that money for better engineering and better quality parts. That's why Toyota owners get a 7 year 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty compared to US cars that get a 30,000 mile 3 year bumper to bumper warranty.

actually, the Japanese companies are union in Japan (where most of the cars are made, and most of the components.) and the unions there have more power than ours do. They even have a say in naming the CEO.

So WTF does that have to do with what I said? I'm merely pointing out to you how contract jobs work. You are paid X amount of money regardless of your current performance. In that regard, CEO's are no different than star pitchers or quarterbacks.

Again, no one buys a product because Richard Douchbag III is the CEO.

So your argument fails.

So what you're saying is Chicago is stupid enough to waste taxpayer dollars for people to do a menial job. No wonder your cost of living is so high there.

Well, let's look at that. I've been to your miserable city. Garbage strewn in the streets, half the building abandoned. Signs up for companies that went out of business decades ago. yes, we pay our garbagemen well and they do what garbagemen should do - keep the city clean.

Your city? Meh, maybe we should make it a landfill. It would be a mercy killing.

I don't know and that was not the point. When labor demands too much money to perform certain jobs, smart investors replace humans with machines. But the liberal solution is to force employers to pay humans more. How that makes any sense I do not know.

No matter how little you pay a human, a machine will always work cheaper. So that's really not an excuse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

actually, the Japanese companies are union in Japan (where most of the cars are made, and most of the components.) and the unions there have more power than ours do. They even have a say in naming the CEO.

What Japan unions do is work with the company instead of against them. Trust me, I've made many deliveries to UAW shops, and the workers even work against each other.

In Japan, the unions are part of the company--not a separate entity only looking to get rich themselves. Their unions work with the company instead of taking over the company.

In the UAW shops, there is no reason to work harder than anybody else because there is no reward for working harder. You get paid the same whether you're a good worker or not. You get promoted the same whether you're a good worker or not because promotions are based on how long you've been with the union and not achievements.

how American and Japanese labor unions differ | Intercultural Meanderings

No matter how little you pay a human, a machine will always work cheaper. So that's really not an excuse.

No. Machines cost a lot of money plus need periodic maintenance and repair. The only time a business invests in machines is when the costs are more advantageous than having a human do the work.

If a human is cheaper than automation, they keep human labor. If the labor costs more than automation, then it's best to replace the humans.

Well, let's look at that. I've been to your miserable city. Garbage strewn in the streets, half the building abandoned. Signs up for companies that went out of business decades ago. yes, we pay our garbagemen well and they do what garbagemen should do - keep the city clean.

Your city? Meh, maybe we should make it a landfill. It would be a mercy killing.

Oh, so your garbage men clean up the sidewalks and vacant lots?

Again, no one buys a product because Richard Douchbag III is the CEO.

So your argument fails.

No, my argument is just fine, it's your ability to understand that's a failure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing is Ray, you say "No, it's not the same thing" then post a dictionary definition which proves it is the same.

So you fail to show me where they are the same, and yet claim they are. So let's try this again: show me the definitions of attack and punishment that are the same.

As a verb it can mean many things. "to set upon in a forceful.... way", so, if the govt sets upon someone forcefully, it's an attack. Or violently, it's an attack, are you telling me that an execution isn't violent? Or using riot police to attack protesters isn't an attack?

It isn't the same. A prisoner is walked down "calmly" to the execution site, and is then executed. There is nothing violent about it. They didn't march into his cell, start beating him on the head with a club, and dragged him to the execution chamber.

I'm not sure why you're asking me what the similarities are between punishment and attack. Where did this pop into your head that I had said they're the same thing?

What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

The US didn't go to Iraq for terror? Well, I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are plenty of issues which I could point to that amount to terror. But this isn't the topic here. The topic is that war is terror. That getting away from terrorism with war is almost impossible. Who isn't terrified of war?

Being terrified of war and terrorism are not the same thing. If that were so, every war would be labeled terrorism.

Terrorism is inflicting terror into a group of people. It's the only goal of terrorism. If I get an audit from the IRS, I'm terrified of the notice, but that does not mean the IRS is terrorizing me.

So, I see you agree with me on the whole punishment thing then? Seeing as all your examples are PROOF that people who are not the govt can hand out punishment.

Physical punishment. Why can't you separate the two? If I leave the bar and some patron I was arguing with is smashing the windows of my car, I do not have the legal right to place him in handcuffs and lock him in a room where he cannot escape. That is physical punishment and not sanctioned by our laws or people. Only a police officer can do that.

Murdering somebody is a physical punishment. Only authorities have the legal right to physically punish somebody. So I don't agree with you on anything you said.

Ray, the whole point of me talking about super PACs is that they are impossible to prove corruption. And then you tell me that I don't have proof of this corruption. Are you fucking serious? Do you not get ANYTHING I am telling you?

What you are telling me is that there is corruption in PAC's, but cannot prove what you said. So yes, I am serious. If I tell you Obama was on the Iran payroll, but can't prove he received any money from Iran, does that mean he was getting money from Iran even though I can't prove it; only because I say he did?

Because just about everything you have replied to in your post is a tangent of what is being spoken about, it's not the topic, it's got nothing to do with the topic, except the part of the dictionary definition, and that is just laughable that you can provide evidence that destroys your own argument.

Really? So show me this evidence you speak of that destroys my argument.

No, I didn't tell you they were the same and I explained this to you in the post you've just replied to.

Fuck it, I can't be bothered with this nonsense Ray.

Yes you did say they were the same. You said they were both attacks. If they are both attacks according to you, how are they not the same?

Nurse screams for help as she is arrested for saying she can't draw blood from unconscious patient

"
Nurse screams for help as she is arrested for saying she can't draw blood from unconscious patient"

"A nurse was allegedly assaulted and illegally arrested when she told a detective she could not take a blood sample from an unconscious patient."

Sure, wouldn't happen in the US, only this was UTAH.

 

[JoeB131]

What Japan unions do is work with the company instead of against them. Trust me, I've made many deliveries to UAW shops, and the workers even work against each other.

I k now you had a union job once and broke out into hives when you had to do a man's work once, but you really need to get over it.

In the UAW shops, there is no reason to work harder than anybody else because there is no reward for working harder. You get paid the same whether you're a good worker or not. You get promoted the same whether you're a good worker or not because promotions are based on how long you've been with the union and not achievements.

Um, yeah. Here's the thing. I've never worked at a place where they promoted you for being a good worker.

I've been at places where they've promoted you for kissing the boss's ass. Most companies look to the outside for new supervisors, though.

No. Machines cost a lot of money plus need periodic maintenance and repair. The only time a business invests in machines is when the costs are more advantageous than having a human do the work.

If a human is cheaper than automation, they keep human labor. If the labor costs more than automation, then it's best to replace the humans.

But since machines are always cheaper, it's always better to get a machine. That's the whole point. Shit, buddy, pretty soon they are going to replace truck drivers with machines, and then your boss will be able to get rid of you altogether. You'll blame the black guy for that, too.

 

[JoeB131]

No, my argument is just fine, it's your ability to understand that's a failure.

No, it was utterly retarded. Nobody every bought a product because of the CEO.

Not even Steve jobs.

People go to movies to see the star.