I really want to applaud them for being able to keep up their absurd arguments for so long I'm genuinely impressed
I assume by chipped in, you mean "paid below market value for goods or services rendered" and by bought sodas, you mean "obtained goods or services with inferior value to obtain superior goods/services, in a flagrant violation of capitalistic principles she herself is trying to defend". NO SUPERIOR RIDES AND GASOLINE FOR INFERIOR SODA.
When you stick to basic principles of valid differing opinions and a right to expression, it's very easy to be consistent. What is absurd about those things?
No but by my ~25th post I'm owed one chip for redemption of a hyperbolic literary device. At least I'm not name-calling...
http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2481302,CST-NWS-savage09.savagearticle Looks like she received a lot of complaints and here is her 'rebuttal' defending her no free lemonade article. I've been out of school for a while but since when did yelling from the back seat of a car constitute teaching?