transigence

Perhaps a small bash script to iterate through all of the package delivery mechanisms’ for updating everything?

Thank you for making this distinction. I’ve never heard this before. Especially not thousands of times by the most socially well-adjusted people on the planet.

Fixing and maintaining a linux box is good exercise. Ubuntu has been sucking, though. I’ve been on a straight Debian for about six months now.

Also, “the top 1%” doesn’t do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don’t want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn’t magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.

Right, that’s the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
If people can’t “own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does),” then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people’s aforementioned freedoms.
Also, “kulaks” were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.

That’s how many is needed for it to stand up and move around.

He won’t be showing up to any more parties, either.

A “capitalist,” according to socialists, esp. Marxists, is someone who engages in anticompetitive behavior, insider trading, protection racketeering, bribery, and all manner of dubious and criminal behavior.
Someone who just believes that people should be able to trade freely, associate freely, and keep the vast majority of what they have earned or traded for fairly are routinely called capitalists by socialists and communists to shame them for being successful.

Is that ChromeOS? I don’t recognized the windowing system.

Does Windows still use GDI? Looks like GDI took a shit.

A “capitalist” is just a socialist’s boogeyman.

Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

Or because they got bigger than they can currently support and they don’t want to lay off their employees.

I didn’t say it was “empty words,” I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.

I’ve seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, “No, it doesn’t.” Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that “it does not mean that.”

The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.

Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.

Low-effort and incorrect.

As does “well-regulated,” especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.