As a counterpoint to this story there was a Boondocks episode where a kid opens a lemonade stand and gets exploited by a greedy capitalist.
EXACTLY. What if these kids just wanted to make and give away lemonade? What if they have no entrepreneurial aspirations whatsoever? People can derive joy from giving something to others free of strings.
Of course I love to howl at the moon. Why else would I post here as a contrarian? It gives you cause to bray like an @ss.
Ass isn't blocked out here so if you're gonna call him that you might as well just type it out the right way Putting an ampersand instead of an a doesn't change your intent
Perhaps. But this is about as extreme as I get when venturing near the edge of Clutch's rules of order.
Hey giddyup, Your buddy Rush Limbaugh is being totally non-racist again in another thread on this page. What are you doing over here?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjMutF_jnrU&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xjMutF_jnrU&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I can understand being a contrarian but there still should be some logic behind the argument. How does kids on their own, and probably with the permission if not outright encouragement of their parents, handing out lemonade lead to a government takeover?
It was just a commentary based on an observation. You guys make it sound like these kids were humiliated and reduced to tears. Man if you had to write daily or weekly columns you might be stretching too. Why can't you engage the argument without dissolving the author or her supporters... Imagine this lemonade stand in River Oaks or West U with SUVs lined up and down the block with people scurrying for free lemonade. That sounds like the scene the author described... only hers was the only patron or so it seems. I don't think it's worth criticizing anyone over but it can be useful to launch a discussion. The author deserves no more "criticism" than the kids do.
I'm so confused. So I thought free market capitalism was about buyers and sellers making whatever choices they want to. I mean even diehard laissez faire capitalists like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller supported the notion of charities and contributing your resources to the community. Instead this lady writes an article on the assumption that these kids are giving away lemonade without the permission of their parents and instead should be profiting. So lesson is, if you're going to take your parents lemonade (apparently without permission according to the author) you HAVE TO profit off of it. You cant give it away. So kids if you steal your parents booze for a party, you better be selling it to the other kids. Dont you dare give it away.
Man that hurts! I've sent him a fan letter every week since 1988 and I still can't get on his buddy list. How'd you know? :grin:
Because the whole thread is actually pretty silly. Anyone can give away whatever they want, but Savage was stretching to make a point about how people expect giveaways, particularly from the government. Providing a little disagreement gives an itch to Batman et al, which I dearly love.
It was stupid, ignorant commentary based on an observation. The argument is stupid and idiotic and borne out of a total ignorance of the particulars of the situation. Better? ... So in other words, your imaginary scene was completely different than the scene the author described. Actually, yes she does. The author posted something idiotic to earn her criticism. What exactly did the kids do to earn it? Give away something? OH THE HORROR.
Are you saying you posted something you don't believe? That's helpful to a discussion. Basically, anything you say is worthless then since there's no way to tell what you actually think. Good to know.
Oh, Batman. How far you have fallen. Once upon a time you would have had a vibrant retort, but now your responses are that of a twit sans a whit of wit. I have always operated on the premise that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but you've basted in too much sauce.
