Yes, but not through the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither! However, I would not be surprised if the majority picked Che, the reason being (and they will not realize this) is because Che was killed (basically by Fidel) before ever reaching a position of power. Everyone looks good when they die young. Guaranty you if he had lived as long as Castro he would be just as fucked up as any other altruistic scumbag dictator.
I think its the worst way. Yes some students will do well, some of them completely understand the material, concepts and requirements. These students are usually of a particular learning type and have adapted well to the system in which they are taught. Others, who do not test well are not necessarily less bright, on the contrary most of them extremely intelligent, creative and innovative (which is what our society needs, innovators) however they don't often successfully conform to the system in which they are forced. If the test is to decide who is the best reciter of information an exam would be able to decide that. If you want test for who is the smartest an exam will not find them.
"You say that a murderer has lost their right to live. What are your reasons for thinking so?"
THEY MURDERED SOMEONE!
how do you think murder should be punished?
I'm not saying that the person who physically puts the murder to death is without blame or wrong doing, if thats what your asking. There are ways around that situation; for instance, a murderer (after being found guilty) could be given an inter tube and dropped off in the middle of the ocean =) My point is after someone commits murder, they are no longer entitled to their life, they killed their right to live when they murdered. The act of putting a murder to death is not considered "killing", its considered justice. Dose that make sense?
Its easy, a persons life is their own, more then anything else in this world. It should be treated as the most important thing in existence. When a person kills out of maliciousness, they are unjustly taking the greatest of all possessions without justifiable cause. If a person commits murder they should be stripped of all life pleasures and possibilities (including the possibility of enlightenment), since they robbed another of the same. Death is the only way to punish murder.
Killing anyone for any reason besides self defense (or defense of others)is wrong. The murder of a civilian is not a "lesser" murder then that of a cop (in my opinion) and the punishment for any and all murder should be death. I'm on this side because everyone is capable of killing, even a cop, so in a case of self defense, killing a cop is justifiable to me.
However messed up the idea of a parent granting permission for murder is, the person who actually kills someone is the only one who is responsible for it, or at least thats the way it should be.
We have, for around 10,000 years, genetically engineered our food supply. We also use viruses, deadly fungus, venom, poison and radiation to do amazing, beautiful and wonderful things. I think the majority of anti GMO (ers) are being emotionally manipulated to fall in line with some extremists agenda, ego and even greed (yes organic growers and organizations are capable of greed). It’s always good to know all views and to make sure the reason for disliking something, as amazing as GMOs, is not just because they are( at least in their mind) synonymous with a certain corporation, they are not.
I am personally against all FORCED taxation however, if there is going to be a system of forced taxation I think it should a flat rate FOR EVERYONE!
Obama offends me on a regular basis, can we send him to jail?!
My skin color is white. I refer to others skin color and race when physically describing them. When I want to insult someone I refer to their ideology, their mental capabilities and sexual organs (i.e. cunt, dick, pussy).
its not the business of anyone to control what another person does with their own body.
Acknowledging the achievements of a child, even if the child is the only one who cares about it, is creating something positive that is real and achievable. Peace and love are a subjective fantasy and displaying a bumper sticker promoting the two only conveys the owners hypocrisy, ignorance and eventual disappointment in reality.
I think they have excellent possibility. The organic, environs have made it there mission to discredit and morally stigmatize this evolution in technology for their own agenda. They have done so by paying off media sources, making an obscene amount of documentary's (design to scare, not to educate) and conducting junk science. They are (in my opinion) equivalent to to the religious powers of old trying to manipulate the masses into believing the earth is flat and only 10,000 years old. Attacking an entire field or study because one company is using it to make money is disgusting and ignorant.
i am very aware that every person on this earth thinks differently, including "liberals". However, if you ask someone, who calls himself a liberal, they will essentially say they are for legislating morality. There are some people that call themselves something els( libertarian, republican etc.) and still believe in the same ideology but I guaranty ALL self proclaimed liberals subscribe to that view. If everyone used terms as they originally where used then "common sense" wold mean something besides gun control, "gay" would mean something beside sexual orientation, feminism would mean equality not special treatment and so on. Liberalism, as it is used today, means acceptance and encouragement of total government control which is the same as socialism and communism.
They both believe that the people cannot be trusted to take car of themselves, that morality can and should be FORCED on the people and that a free market is bad. They are two sides of the same coin.
HA center of socialist and communist maybe. What do "liberals" believe Obama is to conservative on?
A liberal or liberal ideology (in my mind at least) is synonymous with socialism/communism. So a "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean a democrat but rather person that wants to dictate and legislate their moral standards on the rest of society.
Well I agree with you on that statement..............................
Again, I don't think there should be ANY age limit to drinking. Drinking itself only hurts the drinker if even that. There should not be ANY laws against DRINKING anything. I am not religious, I don't believe in God in any conventional form, but I recognize that others do and I (unlike you) do not hate them for it.
I don't know how you can call yourself an atheist and then refer to God as if he exists, and I quote "He (God) is the putrid repugnant bastard of our universe". Sounds to me like you DO believe in him.
I also dont know how you can call yourself a anarchist and be for laws, such as a drinking age limit. Do you know what atheists and anarchist mean?
I don't think it gets any more liberal then Obama... oh yeah Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...what kind of U.S. do you want?
There should be as few laws as possible. Laws do not stop bad people from doing what they want they only allow others to punish them and remove them from society when they are broken. If everything is illegal everyone can be punished whenever government finds it convenient. Physical harm to another person and theft of property are the only things that should be punished and the only things that should be against the law. No one has the moral superiority to dictate and enforce morality on others save for God.
There you go insulting me again, does that make you feel like a big man?
Impossible? You mean like it was impossible to get alcohol during prohibition? Coke, heroine, acid and meth are all illegal, are they impossible to get? Are there no heroine overdoses?
Hahahaha.... Someone who thinks they can win an argument by insulting the other person, is nither smart nor right.
Rape, by definition is force. You cannot force a person to do something and still claim the forced had a choice. therefor, the forcer has no right to rape another even if its what they want to do with their body. want doesn't justify force.
when a person (or body) chooses to hurt (in a physical manner or theft of property) another body they should be punished for THAT crime. If a person decides to rape someone while they are intoxicated, you don't go searching for some inanimate object, past victimization or substance to blame ( i.e. past rape, alcohol etcetera.) You blame the person who made the CHOICE to rape. If alcohol was outlawed altogether do you honestly think there would be no car accidents, rapes, youths that drink or alcohol poisoning?
is a law going to stop a baby from getting alcohol poisoning?
I think your wrong. There may be SOME people who hate Obama because of the color of his skin, but in my experience the majority of people (especially of those who voted for him and that includes ethnic minorities) LOVE him for the color of his skin. That is and was all they see and that is just as bad (if not worse).
What a person decides to do with their own body should be no ones business but their own!
There should be no drinking age limit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are we talking about Obama or Romney, I'm confused? Did Romney pass like fifty executive orders, bye passing and undermining the American people? Did Romney kill thousands of people in the middle east, in a war that he is to much of a coward to declare a war? Is Romney trying to impose his uneducated, emotional, irrational, hypocritical moral superiority on EVERYONE, whether they agree with him or not? If you would like to debate our views on Obama lets do it. If you want to talk about a hypothetical Romney presidency we could do that too.
If hating Obama makes me an asshole, then so be it. Call me, or anyone else who doesn't agree with you, any name you want if it makes you feel better about the views you have. Obama, his like minded elected posse and all citizens who voted for him are selfish, greedy, power hungry tyrants. They deserve to be hated.
All "news" on TV is biased and absent most journalistic standards. I "trust" c-span, I enjoy Fox.
Its true, the majority of consumers aren't educated, but then neither are most voters not to mention people who don't vote at all, yet their ignorance and indifference effects everything and everyone else. However, once legislation effects THEIR lives they suddenly gain an interest and become educated which is what would happen in a free market. Plus, there are (and would be) people who would make it their mission to "expose" any perceived inequality or disregard for environment, thereby helping the public stay informed. When it comes to tech patents I'm afraid I'm not very educated (LOL) in my defense though, I don't really buy the stuff its to expensive for me. That being said I would think that in a free market there would be no patents, maybe royalty's, but patents seem to stifle creativity and competition. I am not informed on the "deregulation of the Russian economy" I will have to research that, though I sincerely doubt that deregulation is what actually happened let alone caused a collapse.
If government wasnt "keeping the economy in check" then corporations would answer to and be controlled by the educated consumer (the public). If government does bad things when its involved in the economy then we should stop it from being possible.
People should be allowed to carry gun anywhere, if they feel it is necessary for their safety.
I think it should be up to the insurance company. That being said I think it (and all other pharmaceutical drugs) should be sold over the counter.
A dictatorship is never needed.................................
If I killed hundreds of thousands of my own people and was given a trial, in which I was found guilty, I don't think I could or would expect anything else. Yes we should be able to watch it if we want. Political correctness hinders progress, instigates ignorance and leads to oppression of ideas. I haven't seen it and probably wont watch it, but I wouldn't deny another access just because I don't approve of it.
Wow, your so smart. How craftily you avoid the question. I wish I knew how to win an argument by avoiding it and insulting the instigator. Bravo!
http://www.youtube.com/
It is one thing to assume that everyone is good and will not hurt you,and another to give up the means to protect yourself from the possibility that you are wrong.
Why is it wrong?.................................
I don't believe in point redistribution. Stand by your principals despite rejection and ridicule or conform to your objectors and be a sellout. don't ask me to sacrifice my morals just because I may like you. I will give you a point when I feel you deserve it. =)
Life begins at conception, I am also pro choice and I don't like abortion and wouldn't consider it except possibly if I was raped, but even then It wouldnt be an easy choice. I do think that the government should stay out of it altogether. However I understand the religious right few and thier concern and it is a legitimate one, the left doest seem to even consider the other sides view most of the time. Another good thing to consider is if a women is pregnant (and she wants and loves her unborn child) and she is attacked and the child is killed in the incident but the woman lives. I think the attacker should be charged with the child's death. If abortion is legal because the embryo is not "alive" and therefor can be "gotten rid of" then prosecuting the attacker for murder would not be possible. If it was decided that an embryo was alive starting from conception but gave women the option to kill it if they so decided, all party's could be mostly justified. The Christians could point at a woman getting an abortion and say you are a killer (and they would be right) a women could get an abortion for whatever reason she wanted without fear of being prosecuted and the person who kills a wanted baby would be punished for it.
I agree! I don't know why there arnt politicians out there willing to do this. there has to be some that want to do the job because they are passionate about the "greater good" and not about making a career for themselves. I would if I was elected, but its so damn expensive to get started. I am going to however, when my kids are a little older.
How much do you make???????????????????????????????????
Teacher are adults, they knew how much money they where going to get. They make around three time as much as I do plus they get a retirement, health care, sick leave, vacation and they get to shape the mind(s) of America. Sounds like they got it pretty good.
I'm supper exited that he picked Ryan. I am a fiscal conservative above all els and Romney was not inspiring on that level. Romney is a rhino (I voted for Ron Paul, though he still wasn't my perfect candidate) on many issues but now.... I am exited about the prospect of Ryan being Romney's spending conscience. Bring on November!
My popcorn's ready too, LOL. Wish I could up vote you twice =)
I don't think it would be an easy thing to do, but it would solve the immigration problem completely. All Mexicans would be American citizens available to partake in the labor market, social programs,political system and pursue the American dream without obstacle. The wouldn't have to leave Mexico. The could stay in their homes and be able to be apart of the great economic prosperity that so many of them "envy" and dream of. Our government and police force would be able to (with time) break up the drug gangs more effectively than the current government is able to do. Mexico would become rich and all its people with it.
From all the things Ive read, comparing mass shooting in America to other countries, I would not come to the same conclusion you did. The US does not have more mass shooting per capita then alot of other countries. Please provide a source for your statistic.
Considering the vast amount of immigration (both legal and illegal) from Mexico to the U.S. (to escape a corrupt government that works for drug lords, to support their families financial and the pursuit of greater liberty) wouldn't the answer to many, if not all of both country's problems be solved if Mexico was the 51st state?
They are mostly annoying, sometimes entertaining marketing tools. If they didn't exist cable would be sooooo much more expensive.
YES! There is no such thing as a MORE justifiable reason to kill someone!
Rich and poor in an civilization that EMBRACES capitalism is only a temporary state. As long as members of a society believe they should have (jealousy) what someone else has without going through the same process as that person, there will always be a division of rich and poor. I am extremely poor so I think my opinion counts for something =)
It is a misconception that someone with a broken bone or any other emergency problem is left untreated, that would never happen. When I was twenty three my appendix burst I did not have health insurance. I whent into the emergency room, was diagnosed and brought into surgery. I ended up having to stay for three days cause my iron was really low, total bill was around twenty k. I set up a payment plan and am paying twenty five dollars a month (no interest). I think thats actually a pretty good deal. I may be paying twenty five dollars a month for the rest of my life but at least its going towards the people who saved my life and not some bureaucracy.
The U.S.! it might be the most expensive but it is the best.
"I'd let this be a valid reason if it weren't so easy for men to leave and NOT take care of the kid. And if the man can take full responsibility if the woman doesn't want to take care of it."
That is a completely sexist comment, it is just as physically "easy" for a women to not take care of a kid then it is for a man. For a man to only have rights to his child if a woman decides to have it and doesn't want to take care of it also seems very sexist.
So, hypothetically, if men could get pregnant and the government said abortion was completely illegal, feminists wouldn't consider it a topic because women and men (on this issue) would be equal?
I'm comparing one bodily choice to another and it dose effect women, you (as a woman) have never bought a large soda, latte or milk shake?
Is my point being lost?
Currently women can have a abortion until they are 23 week pregnant (medium size?!)
"When I was in America I noticed that what we drink as super-size is your large and our large is your medium and they stopped serving the super-size here years ago"
So your sizes are better then ours? LOL. Its cheaper to buy one large drink then two med drinks, what if a family or a couple want to share a drink, you and Bloomberge want to make them pay more for it, and people wonder what caused the rescission ( FYI, the government making stupid laws like this one).
So feminist are "separate" from everyone els? I would think that is contradictory to their quest to be "equal". It is their problem just as much as it is anyone else's otherwise I think they are a joke.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!? Thank you, I was going to say the same thing. You and prayerFails give me hope that America can be all that I think it can be and greater than the founding father could have imagined.
That would wipe out the middle east, Russia, Asia, Africa and most of south America. They have to conform to your idea of what right but its impossible for you to do the same!? You are sooooo open minded.
this is a very fundamental difference between the two views. I am on this side because I do think Peace is impossible. Its a great idea an idea that most good people strive for their entire life, but peace on earth is not realistic. Think about it... your family (parents, siblings,spouse,children you could even include very good friends) is the closest group of people you will have in your life. They have seen you go through hard times, watched you grow, been there when you were sick or got your heart broken, they have seen you shit and know some of your deepest secrets. Even though these people are very aware of the real you they fight with you (or you with them) they may disown you, cut you off, hit you, bring you down refuse to support your choices or except the people you love. If the closest people to you can and do create such pain, violence and intolerance in your life how can we expect billions of complete strangers to all "get together" and love one another. think about what you hate or cant understand...don't tell me you don't hate anyone or anything. Do you hate conservatives or homophobes or meat eaters or pedophiles or logging or pollution or Gorge Bush. If you can think of anything you hate you are excluding the people who like those things from your perfect world and in so doing proving my point that peace is impossible.
I have herd people say that humans shouldn't poop in the woods, because human poop is un"natural" and therefore polluting. LOL
The information is out there, but you have to look for it. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory to some people but there really isn't enough study to conclude global worming is caused by humans to any significant amount or even at all. The media wants to sell stories (its there job) and global warming is scary( and scary sells stories), add to it that humans cause it and we are all gunna die if we don't start living in caves and they make a bunch of money. The government makes alot of money off it to, they can (and they do) claim that the only way to stop this looming catastrophe is to tax corporations (cap and trade) to supply the people with alternative energy (giving them a position to have more control of our lives) but they can only do this by destroying our industries (cash for clunkers and subsidizing and funding solar energy companies) and paying for it with tax dollars. Its a mess and it wouldn't necessarily have to be that way if they would just stop scaring everybody and finish the f*ing research!
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.populartechnology.
YES! It and all other racially and sexually segregated "holidays" are promoting the separation of humans rather than the idea that we are all equal. Its a hypocrisy and a joke.
I'm not going to go into whether or not health care is or should be a right, the question is if OBAMACARE is good for the country and it is NOT. It boils down to this, we cant pay for it this way, it wont work! It will collapse by the time my children need it if not before. People seem to think that money doesn't matter when it come to some things but the reality is money is involved in everything, everywhere and it always has been (in one form or another, trading a chicken for a pencil is the same thing as trading paper for a chicken) and always will be. There will always be money directly tied to healthcare (along with everything els) and this country cant pay the obamacare bill! There has to be another way!
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, peer review dose not make things indisputable. It is an on going scientific study that is being corrupted by positions world wide. Haven't you ever questions it, any of it, at all? If not I think thats pretty closed minded of you.
Yes, but only when it is funded buy politicians, and the "results" are used to manipulate the population to willingly give up their liberty's (ie. man mad global warming).
I don't watch much news, but when i do i tend to flip through most of them and hang out on fox for maybe an hour or so. I watch cspan and listen to talk radio more often.
BS! People are not solely responsible for climate change, actually it is debatable that they are responsible at all. It may be true that they have an impact on the environment but the "cause" of global climate change is not definitively pr oven. Sadly there are a disgustingly large amount of people who believe that we ARE responsible and that the only way to "save the earth" is revert back to the middle ages, and they wont listen to any other ideas or theory's.
If scientists cant even figure this out, how can they so confidently say that global worming is caused by man? I'm just saying.
Why would it necessarily be "hicks" vs the US army, it could be Liberals vs the US army (it depend on who in power at the time). Oh wait... never mind, liberals don't believe in guns, the left is screwed =).
I honestly don't know why federal and state candidates don't run on this idea. They shouldn't be "changing the definition of marriage' they should leave that to the individual to define. the only "fair" way to deal with marriage (on the government level) is to not deal with it at all. As far as estates, hospital visits and insurance goes there can be civil unions or wills, but "marriage" is no ones business but the people partaking in it. Is that idea really soooo radical?
I think he is more depressing than philosophical, don't you have to be kind of open minded to philosophical?
He hasn't talked to me in months, but he may after this. Teeeheee =)
Though I don't really despise anyone, the one person that has made me consider never coming back to this site would be garry, so thats who I nominate.
You don't think that; if you made another account with a non feminine avatar, an asexual name and didn't post any pictures of yourself or mentioned your occupation, people would treat you differently?
I am seriously not saying there is anything wrong with you in any way, I am happy you are having fun, so am I. All Im saying is I think people think of you and treat you differently than they would if they didn't think of sex when you joined the conversation.
I don't think you are manipulating people or that you have some maniacal plan to win arguments, i just think you want that kind of attention and you get it and that is partly why people like you. you are a people person, but you cant argue that the flirting you do doesn't play a part in the attention people give you and consequently how people treat you?!
I think you are a good debater about 50 or 60 % of the time (basically when you try) the rest of the time you are flirting, posting pictures of yourself and talking about how you are a stripper. I don't have a problem with any of these things, I understand the desire to be desired and popular and there is nothing wrong with it. Ive done it plenty in my life (not here). I am merely stating an observation of your strategy (which I know you are completely aware of). I am not trying to offend anyone (get a reaction, yes offend no) the reactions of others to your seduction is completely natural, males are a very sexually driven gender (and you know it) and I don't think less of them for it. like i said just an observation.
are there really rules against voting for yourself, or are rules being made up to exclude sorm?
Hey we agree on something!.............................
I have the most respect for prayerfails, mostly because hes always right! However, from observation I would say that saurbaby is treated the most respectedly, though i believe it comes more from the fact that shes cute and not because she actually makes good arguments.
Did you read this, I think you should consider it at least, this one is from the wikipedia link you posted.
"Criticism
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the right-wing Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments"
Even if the US does spend more money per capita on health care than any other country, setting up the system to be controlled by the government is very dangerous. Consider European country's right now. Most of them have a government run health care system of one kind or another, what do you think is going to happen to that system (and inevitably the citizens) when those country's go bankrupt like Greece. The government wont be able to pay to employ any nurse or doctors, let alone buy supplies and equipment. There is a possibility that doctor's and nurses will volunteer there expertise and services ( then the expenditures per capita really will be low. LOL) but the quality of care will be third world level. I know we can figure out some way to make health care in the US more affordable without socializing it. Maybe we could stop suing doctors or get rid of the nurses union.
When i was 20 my appendix ruptured, after surgery I owed 19,000.00. At the time I made 10,000.00 a year and i had no insurance, but I was able to set up a payment plan of twenty five dollars a month. I pay more when I can but there is no interest and even though I may be paying it fro the rest of my life I would rather be paying that money directly to the hospital then to the bureaucracy of the government.
NO! To give leniency to sex offenders because of some abuse they suffered is counter productive. We can feel sorry for them, have some sort of compassion or sympathy if we want, but to excuse (in any way) someones destructive or harmful behavior with the excuse of "they where abused so who would expect any different" is harmful not only to the offender but to society. If we are lenient to those people then who is really responsible for the crime. If not the person convicted perhaps the person that hurt them, what if that person was also abused and so on. Maybe we should just excuse all sex offenders because there is a good chance someone did it to them, right?!
Do you know how many people are sexually abused in there life? A f-ing lot. I am 1 of 6 kids (5 girls one boy) and all of us have be sexually used (by different people) in one way or another and none of us have done it to anyone els. Blame is a way to escape responsibility, and if they cant accept TOTAL responsibility they will absolutely do it again.
"It's theft if people have no other choice but to give them money to survive"
In what instance dose that happen?
"You see, now you're just arguing terminology. When I said the words I said, I think it was pretty clear I meant 'big business' when I said corporation, and 'small business' when I said... small business. The legal differences in terminology between 'corporation' and 'small business' aren't an argument when you know I wasn't using the words in the way they are used in the law"
Just to be clear, your saying that when you use the term "corporation" you are referring to "big business" and when you use the term "small business" you are including some corporations, just not the big ones?
"Money does not come from nowhere. When you take money, you take it from a source, a source which starts with another person."
It is my understanding that corporations don't "take" money from anyone, they ask for and are given money by people who are willing to give it in the hopes that they will make money from the transaction. It is also my understanding that there is not a guaranty that they will not loose it all in the end. Corporations are not stealing money from poor families, if poor family's are loosing their money to corporations it is because they are giving it to them.
"why not just stay a small business"
http://sbinformation.about.com/cs/
"because to be a corporation is to be apart of a process that damaged a lot of people."
Please explain this, how dose the process of becoming and being a corporation automatically damage people?
"the nature of being a corporation requires that they have been at least moderately evil to get where they are in the market."
What?! why?! Because they sell percentages of their company (stocks) in order to make extra money to grow the company?
