transigence

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.

He would be so assassinated, so quickly. The IRS does not fuck around. Neither does the Department of Education.

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.

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.

Sure, that’s fair enough. That’s fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly “because it wasn’t correct” isn’t an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.

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.

Let me be very clear here:
There is nothing that comes from the doctrine of feminism that is true or grounded in reality. All of it is false, from the wage gap to its stupid cousin the pink tax, supposed rape culture, the glass ceiling, and toxic masculinity — all of it. Every single item in the feminist list of grievances is false. It’s completely ungrounded in reality. It’s nothing but a fabrication from whole cloth spun from a place of hatred towards men and disdain and jealousy of normal women who are living their best lives.
But the biggest lie — the foundational lie that underpins every other lie and the entirety of the feminism movement is their “Patriarchy Theory,” so it is sometimes called. (It’s not a threory, it’s just completely untested conjecture.) This is the idea that men have organized society (alone) to benefit themselves, and themselves alone, at the expense of the women in their own society. This abominable lie is the common thread that runs through every wave and variant of feminism. It is not true, and it has never been true. It has never been demonstrated, and nobody who purports it has ever bothered to subject it to nullification. It has merely been granted axiomatically.
None of the feminist doctrine has ever been supported by any real academia, but instead is supported by a beachhead of nearly-unassailable woozles in their own self-referential journals and articles. But we have gone for so long without challenging it because it’s perceived to be in the interest of women (although, ultimately, it is not). In actuality, it comes at the expense of all of society and amounts to nothing but a misanthropic power- and money-grab.

Women have never, ever, not once been oppressed by the men in their own society. This lie, and every other one that derives from it, amounts to the entirety of feminist doctrine. It doesn’t hold up to even casual scrutiny, much less any real fact-checking or consideration of historical context.

means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment’s notice

Not at all. I’m as serious as a heart attack. We’ve had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.

But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.

People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to “share some of the power” that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the “Declaration of Sentiments” of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term “feminism.” He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.

What world are you living in? All but one or two televised media outlets bend over backwards with big money to run cover for the left. Are you seriously suggesting that CNN, MSNBC, and ABC disadvantage the Democrats?