Drunk 1%-million $$$ boat party kills BC mom (loved by her community) and some innocent old man.
Blames victim for not having lights on.Turns out O'leary's boat had no lights and allegations of booze influenced boating. Alcohol level probably not 1%
Investigation raises left eyebrow.
Wife most likely going to prison. But ol' Kev's got some top percentage legal counsel designated for any rich cunts to lessen any blow of severity to slap on the wrist.
He's just another jewel of humanity
+1
+6
-1
Vote comment up/down
phanto (Short Spike)
The poor don't want to become 'Stinking Rich". They want a decent standard of living and a chance to improve their future. Many people who work full time jobs can't even have that right now. Some of them have to work multiple jobs just to not end up on the street and can't even afford to have a chance to improve their condition. This is completely lost to the narcisistic and arrogant piece of human disgrace in the interview.
The super rich make their fortune by exploiting people like that. They rejoice at the idea that 3.5 billion people live in poverty because to them it is a large basin of cheap labour for them to exploit. They claim that "anyone can make it like they did" but this statement is simply mathematically impossible. Everyone might have a chance in a million to become "stinking rich" but that also means that over three quarters of the rest will have to be exploited and live in misery to make it possible.
Any self-respecting free society should protect itself against this kind of exploitation of its members. To make sure that any of its members who works an honest job full time should have an acceptable standard of living and a chance to grow. Social mobility should never be hindered. If that means that the absurdly rich will be slightly less absurdly rich by being forced to provide a decent standard of living for its workers in one way or another then so be it. They owe them that much. It is because of their workers if they're rich.
+1
+8
-1
Vote comment up/down
monkeymania (Long Spike)
Always have, always will.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
acdc51502112 (Long Spike)
What did he say that was wrong. If you don't work for it, nothing will happen for you. The CBC anchor was also one to talk as she was born in wealth and is only in the position she's in because of CBC's nepotism and sexist hiring practices. She is clearly a socialist and seems to have the intellectual capacity of your average gender studies major. On top of that, the argument doesn't even make sense, and the best quote "I WILL TELL YOU LATER WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY TO THIS" she's an authoritarian rich white leftist who thinks she cares about others, just as much of a scumbag as O'Leary is.
+1
-5
-1
Vote comment up/down
monkeymania (Long Spike)
Dude, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Half of the population of this planet has no chance whatsoever to attain wealth. None. Zero. Zilch. Your "You can do it if you aren't lazy" bullshit take is as moronic as dumbfuck O'Leary's......actually you win. Get back on your meds. Give yourself a chance.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit (Long Spike)
The Planet is fucked, can't save the planet.
The country USA is amazing and has pulled more people from poverty then any other country in the history of the world. ACDC's statement applies in the USA directly and maybe some other countries, when they get their heads out of their asses.
Can't save other countries when property isn't respected or enforced.
+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
Evulva 1 (Short Spike)
Oh boy
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Sempaliscious (Short Spike)
It'd be awesome if you knew a thing.. like, anything would do.. How about:
Or even:
See, here's the problem with facts for you...They all disagree with what you say.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Evulva 1 (Short Spike)
The same principal applies to you.
Your source is fee.org a known biased libertarian economic think-tank .
"Fee has connections to the Koch Brothers. Further, the Least Biased Public Integrity also ties this organization to the Koch Bothers via funding."
FEE has been spouting libertarian insanity since the 1940s, which can be found in their archives. Here are some highlights:
Founding president Leonard E. Read's compares African Americans to wild animals:
There would be no tigers in zoos if they remained as ferocious as when first captured There never would have been any Negro slavery in the United States had the Negroes remained as intractable as when first taken from their African habitat. But, like the tigers, most of them soon lost consciousness of a freedom greater than the enslavement into which they were plunged. They became accustomed to their lot and, for the most part, accepted it.[6]
Is not this opinion clearly discriminatory against the Negro race? It is, beyond question, based on the idea that the exclusive company of Negroes in school is somehow lacking in educational opportunity.[7]
There is something about encountering homosexuality in its militant and pugnacious form that touches a deep, almost reflexive anger, even among most heterosexual liberals. That is why attempts at “mainstreaming” gay culture, even when holding an olive branch, are bound to fail.[8]
They are still against women's lib, but their older articles are funnier than newer ones.
Given the opportunity of serving under a woman holding a B.A. or a man holding a B.A., most women, I think it is safe to say, would choose the man (assuming similar personalities and competence of the competing candidates). If the men of a corporation had the choice, an even larger percentage would be likely to prefer masculine superiors. This is a fact of life, unlikely to change in the near future.[9]
FEE believed that protesting against the Vietnam War was equal to violence.
Violence is too common for mention. One need only glance at the newspaper headlines to realize that the seeds of revolution are being sown throughout the country today. The assault on a single day last April of 185,000 demonstrators against the Vietnam War with displays of hatred for our country and contempt for its laws and institutions is example enough.[10]
LOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit (Long Spike)
you spent all that time, trashing his source. Refuting ZERO of the data, providing no input of your own that we should rally behind, and somehow think we all should agree with you?
Please do better in the future.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Evulva 1 (Short Spike)
Yea source veracity has nothing to do with data claims.
Also GDP growth from 1000 AD wow that inflation I mean value ascension is pretty intense. Sky rocketing in fact
Why would inflation have anything to do with anything?
OR GRAPHS uh oh we got a graph over here. Must be factual
Sorry bro, but you're dumbest one here and usually you make me laugh.
Not now my libertarian friend
Please try harder in the future
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
bannik (Site Moderator)
His data only shows GDP growth and how people living for less then something is decreasing but that ignores population growth and the widening gap from the super elite and rich...
say 1000 years ago there were 1000 poor people and 1000 rich etc.... but now there are 100000 rich people but now there are 2000 poor people... sure the data would show great growth and progress but at the end of the day there are still 2000 poor people when there shouldnt be and can easily be eliminated.
its like this, there could be ZERO poor people if the super elite rich gave up a large sum of "their" wealth and even if they did they would still be obscenely rich.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bannik (Site Moderator)
Love it... everything is biased if it doesn't agree to your beliefs or ideals.
capitalism on it own sucks because it breeds exploitation, the end goal of capitalism is profit, nothing else... capitalism needs a counterweight to its own flaws and that is socialism, by giving an opportunity or "balance" to the extreme wealth you could create better working and living conditions and that alone creates a better society.
I don't give a fuck about being a billionaire, I would gladly be happy to just have my own home and a stable job... even that is harder than it was 50 years ago and keeps getting harder... I will put it to you this way.
Jeff Bezos earns about 1 billion $ a week into this pocket
he could easily give half of that away and still be richer than anyone else alive and never have to worry about ANYTHING till he dies...
thet 500 million every week or he could give 5000 people $100,000 every week... that's 5000 people every week out of poverty, if every billionaires even gave 10% of their wealth we could end world poverty in a 100 years
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Evulva 1 (Short Spike)
Billionaire and corporate plutarchs are already the most successful of socialists. Socialism works.if you are a capital junkie and can already take care of yourself through the means of greed and excess. But if you live in poverty...
Poor: Welfare, tax exemption and bailouts can't compare with their affluent counterparts. Unless backed by religious organizations looking for tractable members.
Pure socialism doesnt exist without personal agenda. Possibly excluding hippy communes in the midst of nowhere desserts or forests
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bannik (Site Moderator)
pure anything doesnt exist, even capitalist systems arent pure and need governments to bail them out and support them through taxation of the public
Comments
(Short Spike)
He's a hero for sure
https://globalnews.ca/news/5944735/charges-kevin-oleary-boat-crash/
Drunk 1%-million $$$ boat party kills BC mom (loved by her community) and some innocent old man.
Blames victim for not having lights on.Turns out O'leary's boat had no lights and allegations of booze influenced boating. Alcohol level probably not 1%
Investigation raises left eyebrow.
Wife most likely going to prison. But ol' Kev's got some top percentage legal counsel designated for any rich cunts to lessen any blow of severity to slap on the wrist.
He's just another jewel of humanity
(Short Spike)
The poor don't want to become 'Stinking Rich". They want a decent standard of living and a chance to improve their future. Many people who work full time jobs can't even have that right now. Some of them have to work multiple jobs just to not end up on the street and can't even afford to have a chance to improve their condition. This is completely lost to the narcisistic and arrogant piece of human disgrace in the interview.
The super rich make their fortune by exploiting people like that. They rejoice at the idea that 3.5 billion people live in poverty because to them it is a large basin of cheap labour for them to exploit. They claim that "anyone can make it like they did" but this statement is simply mathematically impossible. Everyone might have a chance in a million to become "stinking rich" but that also means that over three quarters of the rest will have to be exploited and live in misery to make it possible.
Any self-respecting free society should protect itself against this kind of exploitation of its members. To make sure that any of its members who works an honest job full time should have an acceptable standard of living and a chance to grow. Social mobility should never be hindered. If that means that the absurdly rich will be slightly less absurdly rich by being forced to provide a decent standard of living for its workers in one way or another then so be it. They owe them that much. It is because of their workers if they're rich.
(Long Spike)
Always have, always will.
(Long Spike)
What did he say that was wrong. If you don't work for it, nothing will happen for you. The CBC anchor was also one to talk as she was born in wealth and is only in the position she's in because of CBC's nepotism and sexist hiring practices. She is clearly a socialist and seems to have the intellectual capacity of your average gender studies major. On top of that, the argument doesn't even make sense, and the best quote "I WILL TELL YOU LATER WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY TO THIS" she's an authoritarian rich white leftist who thinks she cares about others, just as much of a scumbag as O'Leary is.
(Long Spike)
Dude, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Half of the population of this planet has no chance whatsoever to attain wealth. None. Zero. Zilch. Your "You can do it if you aren't lazy" bullshit take is as moronic as dumbfuck O'Leary's......actually you win. Get back on your meds. Give yourself a chance.
(Long Spike)
The Planet is fucked, can't save the planet.
The country USA is amazing and has pulled more people from poverty then any other country in the history of the world. ACDC's statement applies in the USA directly and maybe some other countries, when they get their heads out of their asses.
Can't save other countries when property isn't respected or enforced.
(Short Spike)
Oh boy
(Short Spike)
It'd be awesome if you knew a thing.. like, anything would do.. How about:
Or even:
See, here's the problem with facts for you...They all disagree with what you say.
(Short Spike)
The same principal applies to you.
Your source is fee.org a known biased libertarian economic think-tank .
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/
"Fee has connections to the Koch Brothers. Further, the Least Biased Public Integrity also ties this organization to the Koch Bothers via funding."
FEE has been spouting libertarian insanity since the 1940s, which can be found in their archives. Here are some highlights:
LOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Long Spike)
you spent all that time, trashing his source. Refuting ZERO of the data, providing no input of your own that we should rally behind, and somehow think we all should agree with you?
Please do better in the future.
(Short Spike)
Yea source veracity has nothing to do with data claims.
Also GDP growth from 1000 AD wow that inflation I mean value ascension is pretty intense. Sky rocketing in fact
Why would inflation have anything to do with anything?
OR GRAPHS uh oh we got a graph over here. Must be factual
Sorry bro, but you're dumbest one here and usually you make me laugh.
Not now my libertarian friend
Please try harder in the future
(Site Moderator)
His data only shows GDP growth and how people living for less then something is decreasing but that ignores population growth and the widening gap from the super elite and rich...
say 1000 years ago there were 1000 poor people and 1000 rich etc.... but now there are 100000 rich people but now there are 2000 poor people... sure the data would show great growth and progress but at the end of the day there are still 2000 poor people when there shouldnt be and can easily be eliminated.
its like this, there could be ZERO poor people if the super elite rich gave up a large sum of "their" wealth and even if they did they would still be obscenely rich.
(Site Moderator)
Love it... everything is biased if it doesn't agree to your beliefs or ideals.
capitalism on it own sucks because it breeds exploitation, the end goal of capitalism is profit, nothing else... capitalism needs a counterweight to its own flaws and that is socialism, by giving an opportunity or "balance" to the extreme wealth you could create better working and living conditions and that alone creates a better society.
I don't give a fuck about being a billionaire, I would gladly be happy to just have my own home and a stable job... even that is harder than it was 50 years ago and keeps getting harder... I will put it to you this way.
Jeff Bezos earns about 1 billion $ a week into this pocket
he could easily give half of that away and still be richer than anyone else alive and never have to worry about ANYTHING till he dies...
thet 500 million every week or he could give 5000 people $100,000 every week... that's 5000 people every week out of poverty, if every billionaires even gave 10% of their wealth we could end world poverty in a 100 years
(Short Spike)
Billionaire and corporate plutarchs are already the most successful of socialists. Socialism works.if you are a capital junkie and can already take care of yourself through the means of greed and excess. But if you live in poverty...
Poor: Welfare, tax exemption and bailouts can't compare with their affluent counterparts. Unless backed by religious organizations looking for tractable members.
Pure socialism doesnt exist without personal agenda. Possibly excluding hippy communes in the midst of nowhere desserts or forests
(Site Moderator)
pure anything doesnt exist, even capitalist systems arent pure and need governments to bail them out and support them through taxation of the public