My view has been consistent, things that people actually consent to are consensual. People that champion nonconsensual interactions, like you, on one hand, then actively seek a benefit from them on the other hand are confused or hypocritical or both..."Anarchist".
then why did you spend months afterwards doing anything but, and trying to convince us that heinous actions like pedophilia could be concsensual?
teems of drab.cronyedit.
huddlescheme.
censorcrusade.
echochamber.
bubbledefense.
sockpuppetconspiracy.
minimiumwagetofreedom.
teambotinterference.
rollihelp.
windupdollSOP.
2lol. again.
when i was a little kid, i remember great-grandma would take me to the 'new' mcdonalds 15 minutes away, first one in our area.
Someone has to service the machines
Where do you get off giving whole industries a free pass to exploit their employees? THAT'S what's wrong with your whole line of thinking; EVERYONE who works deserves a living wage, whether you think so or not.
Because his supporters are all unemployed layabouts with no job to prevent them from going.
You can't use logic to argue with the irrational.
Where did all these "skills" come from simultaneously right around 1980, when wages for the top earners skyrocketed while everyone else's stayed the same?
Why do two specific supreme court decisions that deal directly with campaign finance take place in the mid-late 1970's, directly before the disparity began; Buckley v. Valeo & First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti?
Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on spending in campaigns, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti held that corporations have first amendment rights to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. Then, to nobody's surprise, corporate money flows in as "political contributions" aka legal bribes, and politicians begin to cater to their corporate donors interests, not the American voters who put them there. This happens in both political parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti
Here are two more supreme court decisions equally as relevant to the problem of campaign finance reform; Citizens United v. FEC & McCutcheon v. FEC
Citizens United v. FEC prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions and other associations, and McCutcheon v. FEC held that aggregate contribution limits are unconstitutional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC
(exact same court, exact same 5 judges concurring in both cases, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito & Thomas)
For whatever reason, you can't accept that business and corporate interests have rigged our political system in their favor, many studies prove this, here's one from Princeton;
https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Trounstine020509/Trounstine020509.pdf
And here's a short clip that explains how it works pretty well;
A business that pays you more than you produce will soon be defunct, leaving you with no job at all. Your ideology blinds you.
