HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:"“Nobody heard of Vietnam,” said Trump. “And they are saying, ‘what are we doing? So many people dying. What is happening over there?’ So I was never a fan — this isn’t like I’m fighting against Nazi Germany — we're fighting against Hitler."

Trump on why he didn't serve in Vietnam. Could you imagine the hypocritical outrage? Libs bad. Orange man good!

Sounds to me like he said the Vietnam War was unnecessary.

Oh, he did say that. But tell that to my dad's cousin who died in Vietnam in 1966 (before 1968) that no one had heard of Vietnam. And I get that he is maybe implying that no one heard of the country.

But he avoided the draft. My point is hypocrisy. How many conservatives would not be up in arms if Obama or Biden had said the same thing?

He's saying no one knew what Vietnam was until we went there.

The hypocrisy is being an anti-war, fuck-the-military lib, then accusing and shaming people for avoiding the draft. These are also different eras.

I'm not a fuck the military lib.

I know. You're on your way to being Conservative!

Jason wrote:I know. You're on your way to being Conservative!

Never go full retard, Jason.

Of course not. I am not a radical leftist.

I approve the new Disaster Aid Bill.

Is Draymond Green correct that saying you are a team owner should be changed because it makes people feel like slaves or is he just a whiny bitch with no idea wtf he is talking about?

Tiggnutz wrote:Is Draymond Green correct that saying you are a team owner should be changed because it makes people feel like slaves or is he just a whiny bitch with no idea wtf he is talking about?

Hmmm. In most industries, we don't say owner. I'm not in the business of questioning why someone would take personal offense to something. That's their right. Result of this would be nobody gets hurt, some people are happier. So I'm not sure why anyone would take issue although personally I don't care.

My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Owner is a common term in sports and relates to the team and player rights? Not the actual players. Hence why you account for them under IAS 38 and not 16.

Tiggnutz wrote:My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Why do you care though? If the term changes, you won't lose anything. And neither will any owner.

My joke would slay in a room of accountants. That is all.

And I really don't think Draymond Green wanting the owner title changed is going to make people forget that slavery was bad. We don't need to protect the sanctity of people knowing that slavery was bad.

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Why do you care though? If the term changes, you won't lose anything. And neither will any owner.

Of course I lose something. I have to change because some pampered out of touch multimillionaire had a stupid snowflake thought. That's a loss for me as a citizen of a free country. And why is the left the only ones who get to change things that bother them which is everything.

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Why do you care though? If the term changes, you won't lose anything. And neither will any owner.

Of course I lose something. I have to change because some pampered out of touch multimillionaire had a stupid snowflake thought. That's a loss for me as a citizen of a free country. And why is the left the only ones who get to change things that bother them which is everything.

Wait, so you're actually outraged by the fact that you would have to use another word? You view it as a loss as citizen? And you're being 100% serious, not trying to sound like a parody?

My God . . .

First world problems: I have to change a term that I rarely use and is irrelevant to my life. Where are my rights?!

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Why do you care though? If the term changes, you won't lose anything. And neither will any owner.

Of course I lose something. I have to change because some pampered out of touch multimillionaire had a stupid snowflake thought. That's a loss for me as a citizen of a free country. And why is the left the only ones who get to change things that bother them which is everything.

Wait, so you're actually outraged by the fact that you would have to use another word? You view it as a loss as citizen? And you're being 100% serious, not trying to sound like a parody?

My God . . .

I'm not really outraged because the whole thing is stupid and shouldn't even be a topic but if you contend that to Spare Draymonds feelings we should change our lexicon I do consider that outrageous. If the owner decides to call himself Chairman of the Board guess what he still owns the team. If Draymond is so sensitive to this the only real option for him to do is quit in protest because no matter what his title is someone is the owner

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:My company has owners yet I've never considered them as slave owners or myself a slave because I can leave whenever I want for any reason I want. It's drama queen forever victim type shit that degrades what an actual atrocity slavery was same as referring to everyone as nazis does.

Why do you care though? If the term changes, you won't lose anything. And neither will any owner.

Of course I lose something. I have to change because some pampered out of touch multimillionaire had a stupid snowflake thought. That's a loss for me as a citizen of a free country. And why is the left the only ones who get to change things that bother them which is everything.

Wait, so you're actually outraged by the fact that you would have to use another word? You view it as a loss as citizen? And you're being 100% serious, not trying to sound like a parody?

My God . . .

I'm not really outraged because the whole thing is stupid and shouldn't even be a topic but if you contend that to Spare Draymonds feelings we should change our lexicon I do consider that outrageous. If the owner decides to call himself Chairman of the Board guess what he still owns the team. If Draymond is so sensitive to this the only real option for him to do is quit in protest because no matter what his title is someone is the owner

Well, you found it interesting enough to be a topic and you're actively bothered by the thought of having to use a different word for something, so it can't be that stupid to you.

Anyway, just find it funny that you are clowning Draymond for being sensitive while you yourself are complaining that your rights are being stripped away because your vocabulary might change by exactly one word.

Hell, you can still say owner. Nobody is going to arrest you, you can let the "owner"s fly freely off your tongue and feel like a rebel. I doubt you're going to care what terminology the NBA as an organization chooses to use. I certainly don't.

I did find it interesting that this nonsense has come to light but it's really just a conversation starter I didn't think anyone would agree with the absurdity of it.

Tiggnutz wrote:I did find it interesting that this nonsense has come to light but it's really just a conversation starter I didn't think anyone would agree with the absurdity of it.

I don't care one way or the other what happens, I just find the opposition to it funny.