The rich really -are- as bad as you think.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
What would it take for a democracy to prevent the wealthy from skewing the system to favour themselves.

Its actually quite easy, requires no changes in current law and no support from the politicians running the current system, but NO ONES likes the answer.

Its simple, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this. Children born today, WILL be both jobless and skill-less labor in the near future. People should be discouraged from making more people. When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more “newborn biological DNA babies”, Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand (assuming the supply and demand principle is actually true withing the USA economy). Regular people have run out of options, we must now actively choose to stop feeding the “industrial complex” with more bodies, ready to labor for less and less. To believe any different is simply naive.

What we have in 2015, is an overabundance of labor on the market. The 1% use this fact to artificially drive down the wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out “excess labor”, the 1% of the day somehow found “extra money” to pay said labor, for services rendered.

Where did it come from? The fact is, the "job creators" always had it, but simply wanted to horde, so as to further control labor, rather than let it circulate into the market.

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern, corporate, labor cost-cutting measures. These measures will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers.

So, I ask again, where do newborn children fit into that plan, circa 2015?

The answer is NONE.

From my view, as a typical “wage-slave”, the answer is, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99%. Children born today, WILL be both jobless and skill-less labor in the near future. People, quite frankly, should be discouraged from making more people.

Not entirely on topic but.....

I have been trying to find something to do, a job, where I am not being overly exploited and not exploiting others.

This job I would be happy to create myself, if only I could find something to do where I could get ahead without taking advantage of anyone or exploiting anyone or anything.

Well, ya' know What?....There is no such thing!.

If you are rich you more than likely simply don't care if you are taking advantage of, or exploiting someone or something.

That's just the way it is.

Oh, and those who are considered to be rich are being exploited by others who are rich beyond belief who none of us will ever meet or know exist.

It's a wonderful world for about 10 or 20 families in the world and it pretty much sucks for everyone else.

JFK was gonna change it, so they killed him, and he is only one example of many that went un-noticed because they were not so high profile.

a reply to: boohoo

The country turning to self sufficiency and better organisation would negate your premise

What I was wondering was the process a full on democracy could simply vote to appropriate possessions and funds of the filthy rich and over privileged - 'for the common good'

Somehow this obvious step has this been prevented from ever occurring

originally posted by: Borisbanger
The country turning to self sufficiency and better organisation would negate your premise

What I was wondering was the process a full on democracy could simply vote to appropriate possessions and funds of the filthy rich and over privileged - 'for the common good'

As I pointed out in my earlier post, that would REQUIRE changes in current law AND also have the support from politicians, running the current system.

My solution requires NEITHER and actually has a few historic precedents, proving it to be an effective strategy for the general populace to use against the "Owners of Capital".

Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the “owners of capital” to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The Owners of Capital want more people born, not simply for “growing the future tax base”, but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don’t have children, nor support those having children. The result will be soaring wages and diverse employment options expanding for all. Taxing those without kids is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids, by punishing those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests, while also not giving into the desires for increased populations coveted by both government and large corporations.

Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. Its actually quite simple, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies, from here on out & blocked any future immigration, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get “worked on” would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants, BUT they have the same pressures as before, to keep their high wages flowing and laborers working, even when there isn’t enough “PIE” to go around to pay those laborers for services rendered. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

This kind of “baby making with benefits” thinking on a grand scale is the MAIN problem. There are not enough paying jobs to go around as it is and the “baby makers” somehow think bringing another human onto the earth is a good idea. Their future, unborn, child is going to do nothing except drive down wages for everyone else who was already here. These people, quite simply put, need to rethink their purpose in life. That purpose, is not to make babies in a world without a job for them to earn a living from. People who think like this are doing nothing more than driving the rest of us deeper into slavery at the hands of the “owners of capital”, whom use “extra living bodies” as an excuse to constantly drive down wages and increase the costs of goods due to increased demand or lack of demand (whichever they choose) through tightly controlled production. People need to change their world view, RIGHT NOW, its not about making babies anymore! Save a job for a person already born and living, by getting a vasectomy and vilifying those whom choose to make more human beings, through biological reproduction!

Guess when one of the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare, or as some have been recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage/allowance that everyone gets, without having to provide labor to an employer first. This above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance, will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.

Contrary to popular, academic and authoritative opinions, history has already proved my above inference to be VERY effective against the quest of the 1% to drive down wages. Hence, if people NOT in the 1%, refused to get married and/or have babies from here on out & aggressively blocked any future immigration, both legal and illegal, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages for non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers, etc. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get “worked on” would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up, FOR EVERYBODY. For us the peasants, “self induced labor shortages” is one of the few ways to get the “owners of capital” to pay more for services rendered. The formation of Unions also has a similar effect, but Americans have already voted against their interests in that respect. All they have left now, to negotiate with, is making less babies and stopping both legal & illegal immigration.

Its simply not about “wealth redistribution” and taxing those without children more, its about overabundance of labor on the market and the ability of the 1% to artificially drive down wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out “excess labor”, the 1%’ers of the day somehow found “extra money” to pay said labor, for services rendered. Which means it was always available and wages could have been higher previously, but instead the 1%, of the day, chose to play the game, “pit the desperate against each other”.

a reply to: boohoo

Jeez I dont mean you to write reams on this but thank you for your fulsome reply. Just the important points is enough – I dont think many people read long posts

To recap:
You believe that a worker withholding labour is not enough, we should go further by not making labour available in large supply by means of preventing immigration and reducing the population naturally .

You cite greatly improved wage conditions in the aftermath of the great plague, when take home pay shot up.

To reduce a population means implementing a program restraining people from breeding.
You are suggesting taking away more freedom from poor people though you want them to do it voluntarily and intergenerationally. You appear to endorse a system and law that enables entrenched capital holders to monopolize employment (as well as everything else ).

Im saying the law needs to be removed from vested interests and put in the hands of the majority in order to reflect the needs of a society.

originally posted by: iNobody
I've done voluntary work in the neighborhood for years and will ask for donations on occasion. I can just tell you my personal observation. The poor were always a lot more willing to give, and give a lot more. I always found that curious.

I was a professional tax preparer for 9 years. Prepared over 2,500 tax returns. With the exception of 1 or 2 individuals - the richer the person, the less spent on charity. It got to the point where I could look at the income and take a pretty good guess at the charitable spending deduction.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
To reduce a population means implementing a program restraining people from breeding.
You are suggesting taking away more freedom from poor people though you want them to do it voluntarily and intergenerationally. You appear to endorse a system and law that enables entrenched capital holders to monopolize employment (as well as everything else ).

I don't endorse anything that supports "entrenched capital holders", you are assuming that "rule of law" is the only means to achieve the goal of less babies and limited immigration.

Why are people still "asking permission" or trying to "legislate" what they want. Stop asking!

My solution requires NEITHER changes in current law, nor the support from politicians, running the current system.

I am NOT advocating a RULE OF LAW solution, I am advocating a cultural shift, enforced by community action and individual reprisals.

Example 1, an H1-B visa employee starts working at your place of business, in turn natural born staff trash that persons car EVERY day and mess up the front lawn of their home regularly. American need to MAKE immigrants not want to live in the United States anymore, by MAKING IT expensive for them to stay here.

Example 2, people with young children start moving into your neighborhood, in turn, get local businesses to ban children, as we have seen done in recent news stories. MAKE parents with young children uncomfortable in public settings until they move away and/or decide to never have another child.

Example 3, you own a small company and people with kids work there, MAKE THEIR health insurance premium SKY HIGH and they will eventually quit.

This isn't about race, this isn't about class, this isn't about religion and this isn't about gender. We need to start discriminating against people who make babies, just like what was done to smokers.

People making babies and immigrants coming into the county are costing ALL OF US MONEY. Not through any fault of their own, but because of the way the "Owners of Capital" have set up the rules, pitting their offspring against everybody else who was already alive and working.

This kind of cultural shift can be achieved WITHOUT government backing or influence, but people have to begin to realize how children and immigrants are harming their subsistence and future earnings. If more people started pushing back at these people in public, they will eventually learn that they don't want to move here and many Americans will begin to refrain from having kids.

You don't need the governments permission to harass people and Americans need to start doing it again, but this time leaving out gender, race, religion and class as the basis. People having kids and immigrants are the new enemy, especially since we cannot make a direct strike against the "Owners of Capital" and cannot form Unions or Work Councils to help protect our interests in labor discussion and collective bargaining.

Think of it this way, how many people are against the spaying and neutering dogs? Very few and although I am not advocating spaying and neutering people, think about how people react these days, when they see dogs that are not spayed or neutered. Its usually a negative reaction, with people saying to the dog owner "You don't spay or neuter your dogs, shame on you!". Now apply this to babies and immigrants.

People en mass should start saying the following to baby makers and immigrants TODAY!!!
"You have children in this day and age, shame on you!"
"You immigrated to this country recently and stole a job from an American, shame on you!"

Make note, my concern is NOT economic growth for the "owners of capital", only increased wages for the rest. A DELIBERATE cultural shift where "baby making" is reduced to zero, is only bad for the "owners of capital", not the laborers. Since "labor" does not have the bargaining chip of Unionization nor the election of true progressive politicians, opposing all forms of immigration and taking violent action against "profiteers" AND their supporters is all labor has left to bargain with. There must be a willingly cultural shift forcefully decreasing the population competing over scarce jobs in the larger market.

Taking "violent" action, as abhorrent as it seems, is the only way to keep immigrants from willingly coming here and undercutting the wages of citizens. The way it stands now, companies recruit immigrants to come in, take someones job, work for less and in turn the immigrants get to live under relatively safe conditions, while they work.

Changes in policy can only occur today, IF, these foreign workers are being treated the same way as workers whom "crossed picket" lines during the depression. Sadly, that could mean violence, until these foreign workers on visas understand that stealing wages from Americans is not welcome by the local population and directly results in an unsafe environment for them in which to earn said wages. Same goes for upper management, when their personal cars drive up to the company parking lot, no holds barred, roughing ups should be happening every day.

Workers today can learn a lot from those whom dealt with this same issue during the depression. I think the 1933 movie, "Heroes for Sale" perfectly sums up the situation we are in today. Things can't change until workers start acting like the ones portrayed in this film. We are at the end of our rope, NO MORE BEGGING, NO MORE INVESTIGATING AND NO MORE PUBLIC POLICY BUILDING. Angry mobs should be forming in front of corporate offices across the country and I don't mean "Occupy Wallstreet" style with the proper "permits" and "free speech" zones. The events that took place during the depression provides all the working models we need today and its NOT 1960's era sit-ins.

Remember "roughing up" those causing the most damage to the lower classes, ON AN INDIVIDUAL SCALE means grabbing a CEO out of his car in the parking lot. Note this IS NOT, the same thing as burning the office building to the ground. Treating an H1B visa worker as a "picket line crosser", IS NOT, the same thing as yelling a racial slur at them in the office.

The thing many are forgetting is these tactics worked during the Depression. All of the "civilized methods" have gotten us NOTHING so far. Where do you expect us to be in another 10 years using the current "civilized methods"?

"Roughing Up", specific people, is all we have left. We are in a corner. If we had "choices" as you suggest "Occupy Wall street" would have been successful and we'd still be seeing continued public efforts. We don't, so we have to assume it was not a success in any measurable way.

For example, when a company lays everyone off and opens an office in Mumbai, people should go to the CEO's house and make him pay for the lost wages, in "spirit" through property damage. He certainly has the right to do what he wants with his business, but its also the communities right to extract a penalty for making such a decision. The "Owners of Capital" want to have their cake and eat it too. The repercussions of doing such should be simple, move jobs away, loose your "safe environment", in which you reside. No one should assume they will be safe, if they economically devastate the communities that their businesses reside in. Detroit being a prime example, those guys should be looking over their shoulder 24/7.

a reply to: boohoo

Once again thank you for your extensive reply -Im humbled

I think you are advocating something called 'protectionism'

Making it uncomfortable for economic immigrants/children is brutal, inhuman and unfair - as a solution it sucks. One would be debasing the self to think in that way. The real fekkers responsible for that dog eat dog situation you describe are getting there way and will reinforce their hold even further citing the prevention of disorder as the reason if you go about being a nuisance ( Jeez I sound like a commie ) I suggest getting angry with capital owners and their representatives in your legislature. Money needs to be removed from politics. It is wrong that elections can be influenced by money...

Unfortunately America looks like its at war with its self and its all way past the point of nice.

As a counter solution I think nationalise the top 500 businesses with cents on the dollar compensation and concentrate on doing everything to promote cohesion and stability, independence
and self sufficiency where it can be – spread the cake a little thinner or what ever the phrase.
For myself I want the NWO – and one government.
Its up to us to prevent it from being hijacked and corrupted by the rich and self entitled.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
As a counter solution I think nationalise the top 500 businesses with cents on the dollar compensation and concentrate on doing everything to promote cohesion and stability, independence
and self sufficiency where it can be – spread the cake a little thinner or what ever the phrase.
For myself I want the NWO – and one government.
Its up to us to prevent it from being hijacked and corrupted by the rich and self entitled.

I don't disagree, but this is impossible to accomplish today. The current economy and legal system is set up to prevent it. The first step is not a legislative one. The first step is putting a stranglehold on the labor pool, THEN a legislative approach can be introduced. But, not a minute before the labor pool is restricted.

If communities had ruffed up the executives whom were shipping jobs out of the country, long ago, maybe their attitude would be different today. But instead the lower classes let it slide and now these "owners of capital" think money makes their mortal bodies, invincible. They wouldn't believe such if they actually had to face a real mob chasing after them, only then, would they finally know their own mortality, as the mob came for them.

Both Shay's Rebellion and the "Peasants Revolt", were instances where the people took matters into their own hands when government and the "owners of capital" would not act on their behalf. There is also the "Bonus Army" and the "Battle for Blair Mountain", both of which are more recent.

The French Revolution and the Peasant's Revolt also function within my "scarce-labor of ALL types" theory, resulting in higher wages being paid to non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers. During the French Revolution, from 1789 to 1799, birth rates fell dramatically and also in the earlier Peasants Revolt, of 1381, not surprisingly, which had roots in the aftermath of the Black Death. In fact, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". The sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". It was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this. The "owners of capital" want to keep "baby making" as an "incentive". In contrast, if they were to tax people who make babies and use more resources "baby making" would quickly turn into a "disincentive". That is why they will NEVER do something like that because more babies "on the way" gives the "owners of capital" absolute control over the wages of the 99%

There has ALWAYS been an economic system at work in the USA that limited the number of able bodied workers whom would be PAID and those whom WOULD NOT be paid. The “owners of capital” learned their lesson about labor shortages POST the “Black Death” and figured out from that day forward how to keep wages down and the number of potential available laborers at maximum levels, while forcing them to compete for artificially scarce, available, "paid labor" positions.

For people without children, babies make their wages go down, make their taxes increase and inflate the cost of vital goods & services, due to increased demand coupled with the "preservation of profits at all costs" mindset of corporate leadership.

Keeping the above in mind, what is a newborn baby good for really these days? Especially if there are going to be LESS jobs available, in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and corporate labor cost-cutting? I can do without any more newborn human babies on earth, in fact all of us can.

The "owners of capital" OWN you and I and the only times in history when the "owner of capital" had "less say", was when the population of available labor was significantly smaller. The bigger the pool of labor, the more control they have over all of us. The 1% are playing a game called, "pit the desperate against each other". Every newborn baby the 99% creates, the easier it is "owners of capital" to play the game.

When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more "newborn biological DNA babies", Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand.

a reply to: boohoo

When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more "newborn biological DNA babies", Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand.

I have no doubt.

But what your suggesting cant be implemented over night and generationally would be a disaster given that that a retiring non productive workforce will need care and resources. I believe Japan is in that position -of having an ageing work force and a dwindling reproduction rate; the women on relationship strike. I read somewhere they were hoping to use robots as menial help for the old – I dont know if they were serious.

Anyway you seem fixated on earning a fair wage by crippling the competition or monopolizing your advantage which is similar to the capitalist agenda.

Also using violence undermines your moral status as well as being useless against the established security agencies of the state - But slow and steady pressure of civil disobedience would work, something which is probably already happening but undirected.

Solution No 2
All march down to Fort Knox and reclaim the peoples gold melt it down into new coinage and distribute and see how far the system gets if nobody uses dollars – Ah wait...who would pay for phoney jobs, or the bas*ard lawyers or space exploration - nope that wont work.

Solution No 3
Commit large money/asset hoarders to psychiatric hospital and confiscate their funds as obviously its from the proceeds of theft. ( Will only work if all the tax havens are bombed out of existence )

Ok Im floundering – but I dont see your solution as having much merit. Can I suggest you open your proposition as a new thread ( if you want to ) because it has moved away from the original posit.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
Anyway you seem fixated on earning a fair wage by crippling the competition or monopolizing your advantage which is similar to the capitalist agenda.

but I dont see your solution as having much merit.

Why? You assume that the common man still has "choices" left, especially those of a legal nature.

You are also accusing American workers whom don't want to increase the labor supply as "crippling the competition"and "monopolizing an advantage". That couldn't be any further from the reality.

Wages do not rise in the kind of labor market we have today. So, as I stated earlier, that means the country has more workers than available jobs for them to take. When jobs are created there are 4 main sources of workers:
1-US workers just entering the market, such as recent college and trade school graduates
2-Unemployed US workers who want to get back into the job market and are ready to apply
3-Currently employed workers being "poached" from one employer to another, essentially "churned" for their skill sets
4-Immigrants and guest workers (and in most cases no new jobs are created as a result of this employee churn).

The US allows roughly 1 million immigrants into the US every year, plus a large number of guest workers. That number does not include 11 million illegal entrants, with about 7-8 million of whom have jobs.

The way to increase wages is obvious from a policy perspective, tightening the jobs market by cutting legal immigration and cracking down on those here illegally by enforcing our immigration laws in the interior and instituting E-Verify. Instead we have a government that is about to issue work permits to at least 5-6 million illegal aliens and also simultaneously wants to increase legal immigration.

The US worker has no party on their side in this fight. Only direct community action and a major shift in cultural attitudes can save Americans laborers at this stage. When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more "newborn biological DNA babies", Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand. Since government won't do this through legislation, the people will have to take matters into their own hands, even if aggressive action and force is required.

There are no more conventional solutions left for the average American worker to choose from. The remaining solutions are going to require a degree of barbarism to have any hope of enacting real change.

a reply to: boohoo

Barbarism is hurt and force and entrenches retaliation and a cycle of retribution that can go on for generations. Much better to compromise and adapt.

Personally my view is that there is an inevitable world wide levelling in progress. I was fortunate to be born in the west and enjoyed a fantastic standard of living that I had no god given right to.

It was just an accident of birth.

The fact my standard of living is being watered down by globalism is a fekkin pain. .especially if you dont have a niche or particular skill specialism. But on the other hand if its happening to everybody ..not so bad ..it is what it is.

Its predicted that lots of middle class jobs can be replaced by software. Teachers/lawyers/doctors how do you combat that - create viruses

It seems a given that economic upheaval will occur, unemployment will increase for one reason or another and wages will fall unless protectionism is installed and I dont think the corporations want that.

Somebody on another thread suggested a small scale solution is local co-operatives, workers organise and start up enterprises that serve the needs of the immediate community rather then exploit them.

I can only see it working if there is a balanced local economy where people trade their services/products.

I dont know much about crypto currencies but it seems to me that if it wasn't anonymous and kept strictly in a geographic community and with hoarding over a certain amount discouraged. This 'money' should always be in circulation for what is needed.

There probably wont be enough to feed the taxman

originally posted by: ketsuko
So because this study and these stats say that rich people are supposed to be mean, we should be mean right back and take their stuff?

Just checking because I don't see how that makes it right.

You're correct Ket, it in no way makes it right.

But it does make it easier.

Then again, I myself would have to need " Their stuff " because
my wants just don't drive my ambition that much.

originally posted by: iNobody
I've done voluntary work in the neighborhood for years and will ask for donations on occasion. I can just tell you my personal observation. The poor were always a lot more willing to give, and give a lot more. I always found that curious.

Which is an interesting point because in my volunteer work (including disaster relief) I have found that those getting the "free" care and food and clothing handouts (in the United States, mind you) were the least likely to say "thank you" and the more likely to have an entitlement mindset than the middle class.

It got to the point where I could look at the income and take a pretty good guess at the charitable spending deduction.

a reply to: Mountainmeg

That include cash / favors / kindness ?

originally posted by: Borisbanger

It got to the point where I could look at the income and take a pretty good guess at the charitable spending deduction.

a reply to: Mountainmeg

That include cash / favors / kindness ?

LoL, if favors & kindness were tax deductible, rich people would be SCREWED!

a reply to: Eunuchorn

LoL, if favors & kindness were tax deductible, rich people would be SCREWED!

?
Explain

a reply to: Borisbanger

All rich people are evil & selfish, Duh. Didn't you read the thread?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Duh. Didn't you read the thread?

No
I was busy unpicking your post

a reply to: Borisbanger

Read sarcasm and/or irony into 99% of the things I say.