6 Replies to “Haves and have nots”

1. dicentra says:

   February 23, 2011 at 10:52 am

   It’s between the “haves,” the “have-nots,” and the “have-yours.”

   Me, I wanna be one of the latter, on account of I hate humanity and want to suck the beast dry.

   And I want to be able to abuse minorities with impunity.

   PERKS, people, perks!

2. Obstreperous Infidel says:

   February 23, 2011 at 11:51 am

   And I want to be able to abuse minorities with impunity.

   I’m never there when those things are happening. The chance to drop an SEIU moron would be most welcomed.

3. Pablo says:

   February 23, 2011 at 12:04 pm

   Sorry to go OT, but this is pretty big. Obama has decided that he doesn’t need the Supreme Court to decide what’s constitutional anymore. Also, laws he doesn’t like don’t matter.
   
   Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional: Obama

4. Squid says:

   February 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm

   It’s between the “haves,” the “have-nots,” and the “have-yours.”

   I suppose that the opposition to the “have-yours” would be the “up yours.” Or would that be unhelpful?

5. motionview says:

   February 23, 2011 at 3:08 pm

   Douglas Adams had a character Wonko the Sane; this post makes me want to build a Wonko Asylum.

6. Seth says:

   February 23, 2011 at 7:25 pm

   When we no longer have equal protection under (or from) the law, we are no longer a nation of laws, and individual freedom is at best only notionally possessed.

Comments are closed.