What's your most unpopular controversial opinion?
What's your most unpopular controversial opinion? Just curious so I can MS some people. Been wanting to do that for a while.
Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
| +40 | SpaceX IPO - what are your thoughts | 9 | 5m |
| +28 | Should I use Claude or chatgpt? | 15 | 6h |
| +21 | Funny Things to Say to Interns | 7 | 9h |
| +17 | How did you meet your significant other/partner? | 13 | 22h |
| +17 | London's future as a financial centre | 18 | 1d |
| The Great Debate | 9 | 10h | |
| +7 | E ink/electronic notepads | 4 | 23h |
| +6 | Stay Sharp All Day With Best Modvigil 200 MG Tablet | 0 | 19h |
| +6 | Test post will be deleted automatically. | 11 | 1d |
| +5 | get a model before you model | 3 | 2d |
Career Resources
Biden sucks - he's much worse for our nation than Trump.
How is your daughter-wife doing?
Stop MSing this guy. It's possible to think dating someone less than half your age is weird and be a conservative at the same time.
edit: I came up with this joke too late and didn't want to make another post but I was going to say something about Isaiah liking trump because his wife is half his age too.
Anyone trying to refute that is actually mentally deficient. Just like Biden.
The refute is so easy: unlike during Trump half of the nation isn't focused 24/7 on what Biden is doing and much less on the stuff he is saying. I have not seen people coming to the street by the thousands to protest Biden once.
Maybe in terms of policies he might be worst, but that's only because this is a rich-person echo chamber that does not enjoy the prospect of higher taxes.
100 replies of:
"I hate HR"
"I hate cancel culture"
"I hate corporate diversity compliance"
All are valid and not really controversial, especially for this site.
Maybe:
14% of public school students receive some form of special education during K-12.
Explain how we're all simping
You think it would work if we removed special education, but you couldn't go to the next grade until you passed. So some sort of metric like that.
For the information plug, don't they do something like that in other nations for car crashes; they put up dividers so no one can see, apparently works good for traffic to continue.
women live life on very easy mode in the United states & it's not even close. Expecting MS from simps
Thoughts on female simps/sugar mamas?
Absolute facts. If they are 7+ (hotness not age) then it's recruit difficulty.
birdman gang
D E S P I T E . . .
only
M A K I N G U P
Most peoples' problems are the result of their own choices, and not some fault in society at large, and by focusing on the decisions and factors that are within their control, most people in America can ascend to a relatively comfortable life. But it's much easier to complain on reddit that society is bad because you took out a $100k loan for a basket weaving gender therapy degree and now the mean old taxpayers owe you something. Or play videogames for 40hrs/wk instead of learning a new skill or improving your fitness.
High fructose corn syrup should be banned, sugar should be taxed, and you should lose $1K on your tax credits or pay an additional $1K in taxes for every digit your BMI is above 25.
Sugar is really terrible for you and so ubiquitous in American grocery stores. The sugar industry spent so much money funding research to link fat to heart disease and conceal sugar’s link to obesity and heart disease. It’s really a vile racket that has massive, massive political influence that directly harms millions of American consumers. Great take, even if unpopular. The sugar industry is as disgusting as it gets, and has been for a very long time.
100% agree, I've felt so much better after cutting basically all sugar and sugar substitutes
Sugar isn’t that bad for you when you’re burning calories and sweating. Gatorade is basically what you need in the heat to keep going.
Sugar is bad for you if you do nothing all day and drink a coke every hour for 8 hours. Everything in moderation.
Sugar is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, but it isn't uniquely bad the way people like Gary Taubes or David Ludwig say. There are less-developed societies where people eat a lot of sugar from natural sources like honey or sugarcane but aren't fat.
The problem is really processed food in general, which includes a lot of sugar but also other carbs, salt, fat, various flavors, etc. It's literally engineered in labs to be as addictive as possible, it's dirt cheap, and it's sold everywhere. It would be nice if there were one magic bullet that would solve the problem, but there isn't.
I would like to see more-or really, any-stigma on making and selling processed food. It causes massive harm to society but no one thinks badly of an executive at Frito Lay or McDonalds, or of a guy who makes his living as a 7-11 franchisee selling Doritos to people who struggle with their weight. (Doritos have very little sugar in them, by the way.)
Agree outside of the BMI threshold. You could be perfectly healthy but with significant muscle density and be considered "overweight" using BMI calc.
yea someone like lebron is probably considered overweight or obese on BMI but is one of the healthiest people in the country, it should probably be based on body fat %
Yeah visceral fat is the main enemy:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/taking-aim-at-belly-fat
I would agree, except most doctors only take height and weight measurements and bodyfat scales or other tests are notoriously inaccurate. I acknowledge the method I used would be imperfect and that some healthy people might get screwed over. Perhaps raising the threshold to 30 or doing away with it until body fat testing becomes more accurate and readily available would be a better idea. A BMI of 30 weeds out at least 99% of healthy people
In my opinion real sugar is way worse than HFCS because it tastes much better. Cane sugar sodas are way better than the shitty corn syrup ones in the US. The US has very strict tariffs on sugar to promote the corn farmers in the Midwest
Right, but I've noticed that with corn syrup it coats my throat and makes me thirstier for more. Cane sugar soda is satiating and leaves me not desiring more (to quench my thirst).
I wholeheartedly agree. Sugar is the tobacco of our current day and age. Have you read 'The Case Against Sugar'?
I have not but I'll put it on my list :)
how is this even controversial? Literally everyone agrees with this (besides the BMI part but I get the picture you're painting there). MS'd.
I can almost guarantee if you included this in a part of a political campaign, it would not go down well. Fat activists, food corporations, libertarians, people who love sweets, poorer individuals, and overweight individuals would scoff at the idea of fat people and sugary products being targeted through taxes or outright banning.
I agree 100%
It's a shame this will never be implemented.
I'd be more amenable to an obesity tax if healthcare were public but as is I'm not sure if they consume more public services than the rest of us
There’s a negative correlation between obesity and wealth. So yes it is costing the American taxpayer money.
I agree in principle, but I'd change the scale from BMI to body fat %.
My friends/family ALWAYS think I'm joking when I talk of the Fat Tax implementation. Hell, people on this thread will probably think I am. But I assure you, I am not. I want a fat tax.
As much as the idea may sound like a joke or exaggeration, I'm serious about it. Fat people produce so many problems for society.
There was nothing wrong with colonization back in the day... people used to conquer each other all the time and that's just how it worked. Anyone who tells you that you're on stolen land willfully ignores how the world worked.
How the world still works in some cases.
Just because everyone‘s doing something doesn’t make it any less wrong. You’re right though, in that everyone should be subject to the same scrutiny.
Yeah, this is definitely a fair distinction... I'm not trying to defend historical atrocities, just pointing out that colonization/people conquering other people is not unique to one specific group and is how everything worked back then
I like to think of historical conquests as the 1st gang beefs
I would argue the Napoleonic Wars were the last time conquest was normal. Around the 19th and 20th centuries true colonization, conquest, and statecraft went out of style.
Anything beyond basic formatting for legibility is a waste of time in private equity and private credit and is a distraction to the underlying investment thesis validation and diligence. I don't give a fuck what something looks like as long as it's correct.
I take pride in making pretty Excel models with conditional formatting for good or bad numbers. Good Excel models at times have to be shown to people who can't read numbers as well as you can and need color hints to good, bad, and in between. Also, a good background color is essential as well as subtle changes in color for each row.
If you're not color coding your Excel models, I can't fathom the quality of your business cards...
Trump was hands down one of the best politicians the world has ever seen, I think he even edges out Hitler. But none of his major policies worked as promoted.
Judging by the last sentence and Hitler comparison, you believe his skills as an orator and influencer were top notch correct? I'd have to agree; the guy was/is strangely charismatic and often hilarious.
I think he understands who the majority of people are. They don't need big words and strong statements, they just need to have their emotional strings tug on in a simple way and they'll cum hard for you.
I think he was good until January 6th, when I think he lost it a little. And then after he kept spouting that the election was rigged, which was just unprofessional. With statements like that, you really need concrete proof to back you up.
Trump's election fraud narrative is more strategic than crazy. He's extremely bitter about the Russia collusion narrative and the Mueller investigation. The whole thing was ultimately a nothingburger but it put him on his back foot from day one and dominated a big portion of his presidency. And people forget now, but a considerable number of Democrat voters believed that the Russians actually hacked voting machines and were controlling Trump like a Manchurian candidate. So they saw him as fundamentally illegitimate, not simply a bad president but one who shouldn't have been allowed to take office.
Through the election fraud claim Trump has done to the left what he believes they did to him. Now a huge number of Republicans believe Biden is an illegitimate president. It also makes boosts Trump's reputation among his base, since in their eyes he was screwed over, not beaten.
Humanity needs wars and technology ruined them.
.
Especially since one of the few things that can be argued war is beneficial for is... technology.
Lack of war or legitimate, life-threatening struggle has created a generation of entitled weaklings. I recently had a conversation with a dude claiming that ''society sucks because we don't have universal basic income combined with free education, healthcare, housing and whatever you need''. I pointed out that up until that man's grandfather generation, people didn't even things like ''vacations'', very often worked 16 hours days, 7 days a week in farms, their only solace was the weekly religious gathering in an otherwise harsh life. Things like ''career choice'' were unheard of. Slavery was widespread. They also faced conscriptions for wars and in case of defeat, seeing your enemy plunder and rape through your society.
What that man can enjoy now is the result of the hard work of his ancestors, and yet, according to him, all their efforts were worthless. What they worked hard to gave him is garbage, society should be tore apart and rebuilt from zero based on childish and ill-defined ideas of ''equality''.
Not only that is incredibly ungrateful, but the real question is how this generation would perform if thrown back 100, 200, 800 years, when life was actually harsh. Maybe if they were a bit busier surviving to the end of the week, they wouldn't have the time to come up with a list of pronouns they want to be addressed as.
As for technology, technological improvement made wars too destructive. One nuke, done. It's over. It made military service, team work, discipline, planning, camaraderie all useless.
Or to simplify my point, back to back Russian army ad vs US army ad:
https://twitter.com/RQuaaden/status/1395077322311716870
Or China vs US:
https://twitter.com/haxanvillain/status/1395182266549166082
The US needs a war and needs to lose it horrendously.
Have you been to war before?
I'm a spoiled millennial as well, I wouldn't last two weeks either.
I will agree that mutually assured destruction has entirely shifted how nations assert dominance following WWII. Thermonuclear capabilities spawned guerrilla warfare which has in turn sapped all honor and glory from battle. The last fair fight was probably even before the great war.
Was there ever any honor or glory in battle?
Real communism has never been tried.
For the capitalist dogs giving this MS. Just know that your wealth won’t save you from the revolution.
-
Please tell me what the abbreviation “CCP” stands for.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I am a liberal with strong-left leaning views. MS me for me stating my political identity if you want but that's not the point here.
I went to HYPS. I had a professor teach a Slavic History elective class who was of Russian descent. He was an old dude who went to school in Russia during the Soviet Period then in Western Europe and has 2 Ph.D's. He is renowned as one of the worldwide experts of modern relations/politics in that region and is pretty famous in his field. While he never made his political identity known or used it to influence our class in any manner, just from subtle clues I kinda deduced that this guy was a liberal and I was curious about his stance on communism/the-Soviets seeing as he grew up there and was a leftist. At that time, I was not a communist (as I wanted to go into finance and I'm selfish lol) but I felt that perhaps some socialism could benefit America and the world overall at the expense of myself. I still feel this way honestly. When we got to learning about the Soviet Union in our class, he completely annihilated it ideologically. I cannot even reflect upon you how deeply-changing the primary source readings and writings he assigned to us were. There was no logic, reason, or basic dignity in what the Soviet Union did. There were so many atrocities, and THERE is no comparison. One thing I hate about my fellow liberals is they often bring up the "both sides" thing when we accuse former nations of wrongdoing. Slavery or our treatment of native Americans doesn't work here. There is NO comparison and NO parallel to what happened under the Soviet Union. It is completely, incredibly off the fucking charts. Even to this day, modern 'capitalist' Russia is in a state of decline and disrepair, with the former KGB execs basically being the oligarchs nowadays, and Putin is turning it into a hateful, west-loathing state with massive income disparity.
China is practically the same except its not in decline. Huge-ass wealth disparity. I laugh when I see people say on reddit, "China is communist so everyone must be equal" or something along those lines. They have also turned into a very authoritarian country with a similar oligarchy of sorts. And you guys know that meme translation where Star Wars Revenge of the Sith in Chinese is translated to English? Revenge of the Sith translates to "Backstroke of the West". Their literal, serious movie translation for "Sith" is "West". I'm not even kidding, that's the kind of irrational, west-loathing culture they have.
My personal conclusion from the course was this: Communism will always, 100% of the time, result in failure. It is implicitly brought out of revolution in times of great instability and strife. The governments that are established in these periods are extremely nationalistic (almost racist) and authoritarian, and always will be, and this just creates massive socioeconomic disparities which the whole point of communism was to fix. Fuck Communism. Yes, it has never done been properly, but that doesn't mean we should try it, because it will never work.
This isn't 1995 anymore. Russia hasn't been in decline for at least 20 years. Pick your economic indicators, GDP, GDP per capita, PPP, debt, demography and birthrates, wages, unemployment.
The fact that many Americans are now forced to use Telegram, a Russian app, because American companies suppress them, is also pretty telling about the state of freedoms in Russia.
That's another unpopular and controversial opinion. Sorry guys, but the US are no longer freer than Russia and quickly approaching China level.
Actually, in China, the state can still jail oligarchs. In the US oligarchs have bought influence in the state. They are untouchable. Above the law.
Interesting. Any book recs on the USSR? I'm fascinated by 1900s Russia.
Communism can never be done properly because it removes almost all incentive, it requires forcing people to do things against their will, and removes private property. Communism being done properly is just non-sensical. People can't even wear a fucking mask - Communism could only be done if every person were completely selfless, which...lol.
tl;dr don't care
The problem with people who support "Communism" is that they have infinite plausible deniability. Marx in his early writings didn't even go into detail or define what full communism would look like, beyond the vague description of "stateless, classless, moneyless society where everyone can pursue their creative and personal endeavors"
It's almost like what an elementary school student would write in class about what their "ideal world" would look like. The entire moral premise of communism is based upon the fallacious labor theory of value, which is just cooked up such that one can reach the convenient conclusion "profit and capitalism bad." Marx tried to create a technical methodology for proving that value derives from the "socially necessary labor time" that goes into production but he failed miserably because it's a completely nonsensical concept - value is subjective.
Furthermore, it's based off of completely erroneous and question-begging conclusions like that there is no need for the state or police because crime would disappear completely - after all, crime is just the result of material and sociological factors related to capitalist production.
Whenever a country with a self-proclaimed communist motive does anything bad, Marxists can just say "that's not real communism," but using such a metric to brush off self-proclaimed communist states is akin to saying "That's not a real unicorn kingdom."
In small doses it has, the early kibbutzes of Israel were communes that were pretty much according to a communist philosophy. The issue is when you get beyond 150 or so people it starts to break down.
Unpopular opinion? A couple years ago I wrote an op-ed arguing that nothing should be done about mass shootings because the deaths from them are statistically insignificant. Of course, I couldn't get it published anywhere.
But I decided the ultimate unpopular opinion would be "Let's abolish the U.S. Marine Corps!"
Care to elaborate?
The Marine Corps is a waste of money. There is nothing the Marines do that the Army can't do with a bit of training. Just get rid of the USMC and increase the Army by about 3 divisions, make those divisions water/amphibious focused and save your self the logistical nightmare of an entire corps having separate uniforms, equipment, vehicles and all the Navy logistics.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the Marines were doing the same things as the Army. Never forget that it was the Army that landed on the beaches during D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, not to mention Army divisions were also fighting in the Pacific Theater, notably in the Philippines and along with the Marines.
You can get rid of the Marine Corps and all that will happen is brainwashed Kool Aid drinking Muhreens will get mad. I'm allowed to say this as I was in the Army and have many Marine friends I like to talk shit together with.
In our increasingly deranged society, the more obviously correct something is the more likely it is to incite the angriest reactions. "Men are not women," "Mass shootings are statistically insignificant," "Fully vaccinated people don't need to wear masks outside," "Communism doesn't work."
China's education system before college is far superior to the USA's.
For those not familiar with the Chinese education system, why / how is it different?
I stayed with a host family in Beijing while studying at Peking University and the child was in high school or something and would go to school all day - from 7am to 7pm or something. I’ve heard they push the students really hard. And with all this effort, it’s still nearly impossible to be accepted to the top universities like Peking University and Tsinghua University.
This in turn leads to a high suicide rate in China: “Extreme pressure to perform well at school and to find employment were the main reasons behind the high rate of suicide among China's youths, media said.”
https://www.google.com/amp/www.asiaone.com/health/chinas-suicide-rate-a…
China's PISA scores only include Beijing, Shanghai, and two other cities, they are the only country that does this. So yeah, there are probably tons of kids from the slums or the rural areas who are not counted in this score.
And as someone else mentioned, Chinese kids spend way, way more time studying than we do. 7AM to 7PM with very few breaks is unnecessary for kids who want to be plumbers or teachers.
I agree 100%. Let's not do affirmative action or legacy or recruited athlete bullshit, lets just have the kids take the test and the people with the best scores go to the best schools.
Mate if you think CCP members can't pull strings like Harvard legacies you're delusional. As for athletics, China is trying to make young boys more "manly" and do more sports because the CCP thinks male Chinese celebs are too feminine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55926248
.
I'm from a country where this system is implemented and it is horrible. Rewards the best test-takers -nerdz- and punishes more well-rounded and capable kids. Produces a lot of good employees but not a lot of founders, creatives, everything else.
People are talking about china, let me talk about India (I'm Indian). Like a quarter of the people on here are south-asian but I'll summarize for people who don't know. Since India is a trash, 3rd world country, basically STEM was king for the longest time and is still king if you want a good job. The only prestigious universities (ignore IIM's for now) are Government-run Indian Institute of Technologies. There were originally 5 and they were basically the Ivy League or the MIT's of India, except it was just Math/Science.
There is only one thing you need to get into the test: A high-enough score on the JEE, which is basically a standardized test. But this isn't like the SAT where everything is a joke and you can get a 1550+ with 5 hours of studying. It is incredibly hard with many college and graduate level math and science questions. So you basically take one test which determines whether you're in or out. If you are among like the first 3000 people or something you make it in. If you are among the other 2 million who take the test each year, you don't get in. There is no application, no bullshit, no recs, nothing. At the same time, this means there is no politics involved. Government officials can't get their kids in. No celebs, bribery, anything. It is a completely pure and meritocratic system. (There was one loophole which was affirmative action for a couple of specifically-defined castes in society kekw but let's not get too complicated). So in the past, this system did a pretty good job of determining who was actually the smartest in the entire country. The test was hard as fuck so you didn't have an overflow of perfect scores (not even sure if they have any at all each year), there was absolutely no bribery/corruption/preference.
The ONLY thing is that like with everything else, the Rich always have an advantage. Over the past 20 years, there's a whole-ass industry of test preparation and tutors with rich kids starting to game the system and preparing years and years in advance. The truth is, this happens in the U.S.A. too as intelligence is not really a thing and it is more a factor of how you grow up. That is why so many kids from Exeter and Andover do well on the AIME and USAMO math tests here in the USA, which are supposed to be purely judging your analytical ability. I am sorry, but when Exeter and Andover has more kids taking the AIME and USAMO than some fucking states, you know it is disproportional. I'm sure it is a good school, but it is not full of true geniuses. Just people who have had opportunities that others have not. So now basically the only people who get into these top schools in India are the rich who can afford preparation and tutoring. No real way to fix it. I am sure China is the same.
I've lived in the USA almost my entire life so would like some actual south-asians to chime in.
I'm white, but what are the AIME or USAMO tests? I've only heard of SAT, ACT, TOEFL
Interesting u mentioned heavier inheritance tax, as another poster said the exact opposite.
Yeah, IMO if your parents raise you right, you don't need an inheritance to get further ahead. Currently there is no inheritance tax federally, and only 6 states have some aspect of it. I think some of the money left over from the deceased should go back into the system. And this is coming from someone who will likely inherit MH 7 figures.. for whatever that is worth.
I've read that some economists say that an estate/inheritance tax is the most efficient tax since you have the least inherent interest to avoid it, you'll be dead. Now obviously people still try to skirt that since people have heavy interests in passing their money to their children/spouses, but I feel like there is less of an urge to avoid an estate tax that you will never see the benefit of vs income tax which directly affects your living standards.
But I don't have kids, so who knows?
Society can never be equitable to all groups (race / religion / etc). We can do some stuff to make it more so but at some point you've got to stop spending time / resources on it & allocate to other opps. It's like throwing good money after bad, like if Microsoft decided to start an airline business....
For the record, there is no country on earth that's ever achieved full (or even very high) equity for a 100+yr period. Especially not a heterogeneous society like Rome / British Empire / current UK / America / etc...it's a pipe dream. Even if you could do it for a few years, it would never be sustainable
Speaking as a minority group here (on race & religion). It's a highly inconvenient truth to accept and I don't love saying it, but don't see the point of dancing around it for the sake of political correctness. From logic and tens of thousands of years of history (or even past 100yrs), I'd challenge someone to refute this. Even Charlie Munger had said that some inequity is natural & good in a society -- just a fact of life, trying to change it too much will result in the cash cow being destroyed over time
pee is stored in the balls
Forced sterilisation is definitely genocide...
:)
Wow this is a FREEZING cold take
canada sucks
In America you can support Gaza, there were tons of protests. Meanwhile in China, you get thrown in jail or harassed by ultranationalists like you for even mentioning Xinjiang
Please give me your take on the Holocaust. Did the Jews "lose that round"?
:/
Jesus Christ Lloyd.
Why did this get so much MS?
Look at some of the quotes of his comment below before he deleted it.
He was justifying China's actions towards the Uyghurs.
Dang it, I liked this comment after seeing it said "pee is stored in the balls" and then I scrolled down and saw what it was before he changed it and now I can't take it back lol
You are a coward dude - editing an anonymous post? To others reading this - he was championing Chinese treatment of Uyghurs.
Crocs are sexy
All the soy boys here with hot takes that are actually lukewarm takes. Like, sooo controversial, bro.
Here's one. Equality is a myth perpetuated by classes of inferior people. Some people are naturally and objectively better than others. Read: That doesn't mean that inferior people deserve to be subjugated, repressed, or persecuted....but that doesn't mean they aren't inferior.
based white supremacist poster
People are not better than other people and one person is not inferior to another. This is a toxic mindset. You think you're better than someone with a learning deficiency just because you scored higher on an IQ test? Get real bro. Maybe you're more productive or efficient, but that doesn't make you better than someone else. This is a faulty mindset. Once you conquer this mindset, maybe you can get a real glimpse of the world.
You might appreciate Nietzsche's writing on moral anti-realism. Look into his work on the master and slave morality. It highlights a potential impure origin of religious moral realism - that there is a independent ethical truth. Essentially, he argued that the Christian values of poverty, asceticism, piety, weakness, i.e. 'meek shall inherit' were impure in origin because they could have originated as a reversion of what is truly virtuous - power, strength, intelligence, and wealth. He illustrated this example through a story about slaves overthrowing their masters in antiquity. Very interesting counterexample to the Christian ethics of the first and second millennia. Very important to think about when people pretend all humans were created equally. Pure exertion of our will on the world is the only way to live true to ourselves. Arbitrary 'weakness' spits in the face of the true capabilities of mankind.
Based on his post I'm going to go out on a limb and say he has in fact read Nietzsche.
My position is that not only should we not end the drug war, but we should fight it the proper way: by publicly executing drug dealers. It works in Asia and the Middle East. If public execution doesn't end the problem, I'd send elite US special forces into central and South America to kill every single person involved in the drug trade, up to and including government officials. I'd seal the southern border so tight a fart couldn't get through. 80,000+ Americans die each year under the slavery of drugs. It would end on my watch.
Also, to end the inner city killing fields I would declare martial law in several dozen U.S. cities, march the troops down the streets, escort kids to school, and declare specific gangs to be terrorists organizations and have all of their known members arrested and disappeared forever. Rapists, drug dealers, and murderers would be summarily executed by castration, drawing and quartering. If the Supreme Court tried to stop me I'd ignore them and dare them to arrest me (if I were President).
Wow
Rodrigo Duterte has entered the chat.
Look, 96,500 Americans die of drug overdoses or murder each year in the United States. Tens of millions more live in fear due to a small percentage of the population that is comprised of psychopaths, either born or bred. Desperately poor kids can't get a decent education because so many of these inner city schools are violent basket cases where teachers are more concerned with breaking up fights than teaching subjects. There is a war on poor America being waged by politicians who don't give a shit about the poor or about the poor's opportunity to rise out of poverty.
Taking out thousands of the worst psychopaths to liberate millions is a trade I'm willing to make, and I'd really like to understand why so many Americans aren't willing to make that trade. Frankly, our republic's abandonment of the poor is enough to undermine my belief in representative democracy.
Completely disagree and think all drugs should be legal. It's a waste of time to legislate morality. Cocaine is only second to water.
You do realize that every law ever made is legislation of morality, right? Fraud, theft, murder, speeding, DUI, assault, etc. We don't outlaw these things for reasons of efficiency. We outlaw them because as a society we have determined that they are immoral and bad for a civilized society. We have determined that slavery is immoral and outlawed it. The reason hard drugs are immoral is because they destroy people's lives and enslave them to addiction. Those heroin doesn't kill it enslaves.
Keeping some drugs illegal is not about "morality." Heroin, meth, and crack are highly addictive. They throw people out of work and into a cycle of crime and addiction. They're a scourge on our society.
Occupied Rhodesia would be much better off if not for Mugabe.
Itaque sapiente itaque maiores. Voluptatem nihil ipsa ipsam perferendis voluptatem incidunt odio. Rerum distinctio voluptas sit quas officiis non. Voluptas similique est consequatur aut molestias. Aliquam numquam illum tempora ut ipsum.
Ea fuga distinctio iste natus sit odit. Dolor blanditiis quia vel ipsa vero enim ab.
Quia fugit repudiandae aut aspernatur. Sapiente nihil nihil non quidem pariatur. Qui ducimus ut porro modi. Voluptatem quos aut culpa et. Ad fugiat molestiae quisquam nisi ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Libero voluptates blanditiis veniam cum ut possimus quae. Voluptatem tenetur sunt laudantium ut nobis tempore blanditiis. Dicta totam vero qui debitis sit voluptatem. Eum explicabo quia odio doloribus tempora qui reiciendis consectetur.
Officia magni harum dolores aut et aspernatur. Itaque optio numquam ea dolor ut nihil. Excepturi dolorum ex in est autem. Enim aut consequatur est atque eum numquam. Excepturi magni id est.
Velit recusandae dolorem itaque nam eaque. Voluptates ut ut molestiae qui aliquid qui enim.
Id consequatur libero adipisci nemo voluptatum. Modi ipsam sunt aspernatur similique. Ex provident quas nihil nostrum enim. Exercitationem deserunt architecto praesentium iusto maxime. Accusantium enim itaque unde error. Sequi nihil aspernatur expedita. Magnam sit maxime rerum hic quia nesciunt soluta.
Natus optio nihil quis iste et vitae. Recusandae velit magni ut reprehenderit blanditiis facere ipsa. Tempore est minus consequatur quaerat. Est excepturi odio totam in dolore odit. Alias et reiciendis nobis adipisci.
Id assumenda enim est quia nobis enim cumque. Laudantium praesentium consequuntur eos veritatis. Distinctio est aspernatur incidunt perferendis nam qui. Excepturi quas sunt a veritatis et.
Molestiae eos natus eos minima. Rerum dignissimos eum ducimus eos. Occaecati qui consectetur rem adipisci ut.
Rem est earum voluptatem enim officia. Ut ut officia a earum aut ea ut. Dolore dolorem rerum quisquam eaque corporis in. Quia et natus et.
Nesciunt ut eum eum voluptatibus. Optio esse enim maiores alias provident error. Quae qui omnis nihil.
Quia id rem harum explicabo architecto. Nihil facilis corporis ab voluptatem dolores deserunt quisquam. Enim quo accusantium natus odio ipsum voluptatum consectetur ea. Reiciendis rerum et libero quis. Vitae soluta in aspernatur atque est.