The upside of collectivism… Elizabeth Warren argues for redistribution of hot sex. Well, Bill Clinton and JFK tacitly agreed it was part of the social contract but we don’t recall them campaiging for shared sacrifice.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (17)
The link don't work but i am happy to see this is a satire. After all if she really said this she would be Olivia and that would not be a good look. She doesn't need to get uglier. Now... that was funny and interestingly enough it sounds like something that happens in a sharia based country.
This fugly woman reminds me of a Raggety Ann doll my sister had waaay back when. You know she has to buy her pleasures and even then the dude would have to take a handful of Viagra. She definately qualifies for a sack on the head.
I would get shiznit from the libcomms if I post this due to the word 'boarders'. I enjoy it since it is funny!
Of course the government should provide sex, after all they provide food and shelter, and everyone knows health insurance is a "right". And clinical evidence is that sex three to four times per week lessens heart disease in men more effectively than any prescription.
For the original quote now gallivanting around the web by liberal fairies I say: That is WHY I pay taxes.
As for IHTM: There are plenty of liberals out there who are attracted to Braaiiiinzzz!
So you're telling us liberals enjoy paying $10 for something worth $5, because that's what the government basically is doing. Great, I'll make you an even better deal - I'll do absolutely NOTHING for your $10 - that should make you ecstatic.
Sure, they're attracted to "Braaiiiinzzz" because they don't have any themselves.
mmmmm. Tasty braaiiiiinzzz.... That way?
I don't think Elizabeth is gonna have to worry about the sex thing.....Theres just not enough alcohol in the world.
There is a valid point to be made in what she said -the original comment, not your satire here - in that yes, nobody gets rich by himself. It does take a functioning society and economy, and there is a certain amount of interdependence and the cooperation of a free market. It is very possible that the whole computer revolution would not have happened without Bill Gates (since Unix/Linux remains pretty arcane, and Apple sucks). Like him or loathe him, he is a genius at both computers and marketing. And he would be another faceless IBM drone writing code for mainframes if it wasn't for the rest of us out here who bought Windows.
What she does is push the whole concept reductio ad absurdum, a popular Democrat ploy. A specific error (or "lie") judging from the above, is that the social contract noted necessarily involves the interest of government. Unless in very unusual cases, the only role of government in that social contract is to make sure that individuals live up to agreements they have made (enforcement of contracts) and prevent outright theft (police). That's it. No food stamps, no punitive or confiscatory taxation. And certainly no active push to redistribute wealth in the name of some vapid flatulence called "social justice."
Y, I don't think any sane person would disagree with her contention that we need roads and bridges, police and fire, courts, the military, etc, etc. What we DON'T need is shit like Obamacare, Stimulus, Solyndra, not to mention Fast and Furious, $16 muffins, much of the crap the EPA, Education, Energy depts do... Warren, Obama and the Democrats would LIKE us to believe that all government spending is for useful, important stuff which therefore CAN'T be cut, so we have to raise taxes. That is total bullshit. If we separate stuff that the majority of the public agrees is important from the junk that benefits narrow constituencies and their interests and cut the latter ruthlessly, we would still have a functioning society, low taxes and a growing economy again. It is often said that the support for spending reductions is wide but weakly motivated while the support for any program targeted for reduction is narrow but extremely vocal. What we have to start doing is ignoring the anguished pleas of the public teat suckers.
this is the very debate.. there are libertarians who believe that roads or policing or the very law itself should be private. I like everything in your public list remaining that way.
I read somewhere that the difference between the public/private lists of Republicans & Democrats is the existence of a third column for Dems: Utilities. Yes, privately run, but highly regulated and more or less guaranteed to everyone
If she'd shut up and buy me a few more shots,...
several more shots,...a bottle of 151...then maybe?!
That's called the old they all look good after 2AM theory.
How come the fugly ones always complain about how much the good lookers are getting laid?
An employee of a big campaign firm once told me "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people".