Petition to ban Kendall Jones From Hunting in Africa

[Sir Wulfington 276]

If you are intentionally being rude then you will have problems at the forum for we don't support rude behaviour(at least not that I know of). Not all "rich" people are what is stereo typically portrayed. I have had problems in the past with companies taking advantage of others(stole my idea *cough*), but I don't see all rich people do this.

 

 

 

Well I know it's against the rules to just attack people, but bad people, I'm pretty sure, is fine here. Oh and I forgot to add, the only reason rich people donate more is because they have more money with which to donate. But middle and lower class folk, on average, donate much more, percentage wise, of their money. Rich people typically only donate to make themselves look good, they don't actually care, or else they wouldn't throw their money away on pointless luxurious like mansions, expensive cars, etc.

I only even brought rich people up because Kendall is no doubt wealthy if she can afford to pay the ridiculous prices to hunt each animal she's been hunting since she was a young girl.

 

 

And really, I don't know why I even reconsidered my stance on her, if the reason for allowing hunting there is to prevent poaching, which would be for the sake of providing more income for the country, than she could easily just donate the cash she uses to kill those animals instead of, you know, killing them. Kinda puts a dent in the theory that she's doing this for benevolent reasons, huh? That and her joyful expressions as she posed with their carcasses.

 

You are beginning to scare me with your name calling.

I don't know why you would be, if anything, I'm scared by the people supporting unnecessary animal slaughter.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Sir Wulfington

[Fractured 2,684]

It's the ideal of morality vs legality, isn't it? Should we want to stop her? If the negatives of her hunting outweigh the benefits, sure. From what i'm hearing above, it doesn't sound like they do, though. Do we have the right to stop her? No, as she is not currently breaking any laws or running against the government. Doesn't matter how you feel about it(I personally don't like it), she's perfectly within her rights to do what she's doing.

[Teen Buscemi 135]

I think her hunting of these animals saves them from a more drawn out and painful death in the wild

[BronyPony 575]

Well I know it's against the rules to just attack people, but bad people, I'm pretty sure, is fine here. Oh and I forgot to add, the only reason rich people donate more is because they have more money with which to donate. But middle and lower class folk, on average, donate much more, percentage wise, of their money. Rich people typically only donate to make themselves look good, they don't actually care, or else they wouldn't throw their money away on pointless luxurious like mansions, expensive cars, etc.

I only even brought rich people up because Kendall is no doubt wealthy if she can afford to pay the ridiculous prices to hunt each animal she's been hunting since she was a young girl.

You need to stop smoking, because I hear that a lot and I find it offensive, considering that I am not that bad off(not completely rich, but not poor). Though we get a lot of income, we live in a small home with only transportation that is necessary. We pay our taxes and donate money to charity. I voluntary(for free) teach people how to program so they can be better of with employment. So your stereotype of the upper class is very offensive.

 

 

 

And really, I don't know why I even reconsidered my stance on her, if the reason for allowing hunting there is to prevent poaching, which would be for the sake of providing more income for the country, than she could easily just donate the cash she uses to kill those animals instead of, you know, killing them. Kinda puts a dent in the theory that she's doing this for benevolent reasons, huh? That and her joyful expressions as she posed with their carcasses.

 

I don't know why you would be, if anything, I'm scared by the people supporting unnecessary animal slaughter.

What the buck are you talking about? I find it smarter to earn money and donate rather than simply giving it all away. One is only a one time donation while the other is a continuous flow of donations. I don't know what you are talking about and you clearly don't know about economics.

 

 

 

I don't know why you would be, if anything, I'm scared by the people supporting unnecessary animal slaughter.

How is it unnecessary?

Edited July 28, 2014 by BronyPony

[CT-1138 3,182]

I think her hunting of these animals saves them from a more drawn out and painful death in the wild

We don't know that, now do we. 

[Sir Wulfington 276]

You need to stop smoking, because I hear that a lot and I find it offensive, considering that I am not that bad off(not completely rich, but not poor). Though we get a lot of income, we live in a small home with only transportation that is necessary. We pay our taxes and donate money to charity. I voluntary(for free) teach people how to program so they can be better of with employment. So your stereotype of the upper class is very offensive.

 

 

You're an exception to the rule, not the norm. That's implying you don't spend on other pointless luxuries (like slightly better versions of things priced absurdly higher). If most rich people cared, they'd live like middle class folk. Any rich person who doesn't is a jackass, and any good they do is merely for publicity and nothing more. There's nothing you can buy as a wealthy person that isn't something you can get for much cheaper, tho a bit inferior (in some cases they're exactly the same in function), as a middle class member. Rich people typically buy things just to show that they can.

 

 

What the buck are you talking about? I find it smarter to earn money and donate rather than simply giving it all away. One is only a one time donation while the other is a continuous flow of donations. I don't know what you are talking about and you clearly don't know about economics.

 

I mean, if she can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per kill, she could easily afford to just give the country that money, because as I recall, the entire point of not outlawing hunting is to prevent poaching because the country either needs the money or the conservationists there need it to protect the animals, so that poachers don't wipe them out completely, because that's what they'll do. If she really cared, she'd just give them at money, since she can obviously afford to.

 

 

 

 

 

How is it unnecessary?

 

How is it?

[Teen Buscemi 135]

Touche! But they will eventually die and most often then not it's painful

[BronyPony 575]

 

 

You're an exception to the rule, not the norm. That's implying you don't spend on other pointless luxuries (like slightly better versions of things priced absurdly higher). If most rich people cared, they'd live like middle class folk. Any rich person who doesn't is a jackass, and any good they do is merely for publicity and nothing more. There's nothing you can buy as a wealthy person that isn't something you can get for much cheaper, tho a bit inferior (in some cases they're exactly the same in function), as a middle class member. Rich people typically buy things just to show that they can.

To be honest, I don't give a crap about what you spend your money on. You earned the money fair and square and it does not give you the obligation to donate to charity. And, just because someone doesn't live in the middle class doesn't mean they are a j-ck-ss. You are acting more like one criticizing how people live. Also, a majority of those in the upper class both benefit the economy and the advancement in medicine and technology.

 

 

 

I mean, if she can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per kill, she could easily afford to just give the country that money, because as I recall, the entire point of not outlawing hunting is to prevent poaching because the country either needs the money or the conservationists there need it to protect the animals, so that poachers don't wipe them out completely, because that's what they'll do. If she really cared, she'd just give them at money, since she can obviously afford to.

If you realize what is going on there, you would realize that a majority of the time the country's government squanders its money instead of giving it to the people.

[yeet 2,027]

I signed it like, some time ago. So yeah. Stop this.

[Hive King 2,001]

We don't know that, now do we. 

We kind of do. A lot of animals die of starvation because their teeth are grinded down(elephants)

[Sir Wulfington 276]

To be honest, I don't give a crap about what you spend your money on. You earned the money fair and square and it does not give you the obligation to donate to charity. And, just because someone doesn't live in the middle class doesn't mean they are a j-ck-ss. You are acting more like one criticizing how people live. Also, a majority of those in the upper class both benefit the economy and the advancement in medicine and technology.

 

If you realize what is going on there, you would realize that a majority of the time the country's government squanders its money instead of giving it to the people.

 

 

You do, actually, have moral obligation to give away your excess cash to worthwhile causes. Once you have what you truly need in life to be happy, that is. And no, that doesn't include the crap that a typical rich person buys, it's all just redundant, pointless junk. You only need one car, you only need a single normal sized home (if anything, mansions should be homes for large groups of people living together, justifying the extra space.), a tv standard television you can buy for 100-200 bucks works just as fine as a $3000 bigscreen HD tv, a wedding ring priced at 10k is pointless when you can either buy a really cheap ring or not get married because marriage is fucking pointless anyway (but that's a whole 'nother topic), a super attractive looking hand bag that costs $30,000 is retarded to buy when you could just get a normal 25 buck handbag, there's no point in dropping hundreds or thousands of dough on a super fancy restaurant when you can just go eat at a $10 or less per meal joint that's tastes great too. 

 

Do you see where I'm going with this? That's what I mean. I don't care if you "earned" it or think you earned it, just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be effectively flush it down a drain. But I doubt you'll listen, if you don't care I doubt anything could make you. And this has gone off topic so I'll leave that argument here.

 

And if giving Africa's government money is pointless, than what's the point of her spending money to hunt when, according to this article, which contradicts the one I linked that defended her actions, outlawing hunting in a certain region of africa actually caused, NOT FUCKING SURPRISINGLY, the lion population to grow. Where as, the one justifying her actions says outlawing hunting causes more animal death than making it legal. HMMM, which makes more sense, I wonder?

It's the ideal of morality vs legality, isn't it? Should we want to stop her? If the negatives of her hunting outweigh the benefits, sure. From what i'm hearing above, it doesn't sound like they do, though. Do we have the right to stop her? No, as she is not currently breaking any laws or running against the government. Doesn't matter how you feel about it(I personally don't like it), she's perfectly within her rights to do what she's doing.

 

If you really cared since it's morally wrong from your point of view, you wouldn't say "it's her right so she can do as she pleases". Someone who's morally offended by something would never just shrug and go "ah it's her rights, so EH", unless they were completely apathetic about it.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Sir Wulfington

[Twilight Dirac 721]

 

 

You do, actually, have moral obligation to give away your excess cash to worthwhile causes. Once you have what you truly need in life to be happy, that is. And no, that doesn't include the crap that a typical rich person buys, it's all just redundant, pointless junk. You only need one car, you only need a single normal sized home (if anything, mansions should be homes for large groups of people living together, justifying the extra space.), a tv standard television you can buy for 100-200 bucks works just as fine as a $3000 bigscreen HD tv, a wedding ring priced at 10k is pointless when you can either buy a really cheap ring or not get married because marriage is fucking pointless anyway (but that's a whole 'nother topic), a super attractive looking hand bag that costs $30,000 is retarded to buy when you could just get a normal 25 buck handbag, there's no point in dropping hundreds or thousands of dough on a super fancy restaurant when you can just go eat at a $10 or less per meal joint that's tastes great too.    Do you see where I'm going with this? That's what I mean. I don't care if you "earned" it or think you earned it, just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be effectively flush it down a drain. But I doubt you'll listen, if you don't care I doubt anything could make you. And this has gone off topic so I'll leave that argument here.

 

You do realize that not every wealthy person buys every last extravagant thing.  Most of them will probably have nicer homes and cars which they will be making use of everyday.  Other than that, an aviation enthusiasts might own a small plane, an art enthusiasts will have some nice paintings, somebody who is into cars will probably have a nice sports car, and there is nothing really wrong with that.  Unless they either won the lottery or inherited the wealth, they earned that money through hard work and study and used that work and study to provide valuable services to others through the marketplace.  Often they will be business owners who also employ others in addition to providing needed services.  They are also likely going to be active in the community and fund some charities; the wealthy and successful tend not be shut-ins that cut themselves off from the local community.  So what if they use some of the money they owned and earned to buy themselves something they like?  It is their property and their decision, they aren't automatically evil because they decided to use their wealth to purchase something they wanted.

 

And again, a fail to see how hunting is any worse than ordering the baby back ribs from Sonny's as I mentioned prior to this act of threadomancy.

[Fractured 2,684]

 

 

If you really cared since it's morally wrong from your point of view, you wouldn't say "it's her right so she can do as she pleases". Someone who's morally offended by something would never just shrug and go "ah it's her rights, so EH", unless they were completely apathetic about it.

It's a general statement. I, for one, am opposed to hunting if you aren't going to eat what you kill, but since the purpose(so she claims) is to promote conservation, and she (supposedly) doesn't kill enough to damage the population, the positives outweigh the negative. Of course, the fact that we're talking about this means that she's promoting the ideal anyway, even if she didn't mean to. The world's eyes are on her, and now that everybody's concerned, better things can come out of it. People actually care now. Out of the bad came something better, and while I may wish it never happened at all, it's the best situation that could've come out of this.

[Sir Wulfington 276]

You do realize that not every wealthy person buys every last extravagant thing.  Most of them will probably have nicer homes and cars which they will be making use of everyday.  Other than that, an aviation enthusiasts might own a small plane, an art enthusiasts will have some nice paintings, somebody who is into cars will probably have a nice sports car, and there is nothing really wrong with that.  Unless they either won the lottery or inherited the wealth, they earned that money through hard work and study and used that work and study to provide valuable services to others through the marketplace.  Often they will be business owners who also employ others in addition to providing needed services.  They are also likely going to be active in the community and fund some charities; the wealthy and successful tend not be shut-ins that cut themselves off from the local community.  So what if they use some of the money they owned and earned to buy themselves something they like?  It is their property and their decision, they aren't automatically evil because they decided to use their wealth to purchase something they wanted.

 

And again, a fail to see how hunting is any worse than ordering the baby back ribs from Sonny's as I mentioned prior to this act of threadomancy.

 

Yeah, no. Again, don't care if you "earned" it, doesn't mean you should waste. Most rich people are selfish, greedy scumbags who only want more for themselves, and could give a fuck less about other living beings. I mean, the best way to be wealthy is to stamp all over as many people as you can to gain more money, like look at CEO's who make MILLIONS (bobby kotick, who's name does not deserve to be capitalized, made 55 million last year) who charge their workers so little by comparison, as little as they can get away with. And if the company ain't making as much profit as before? They hack some of their workforce, while still keeping their fat paychecks intact. Again, the best way to make money is to disregard the lives of others when it benefits you. And people who want to be rich, who do, are typically content to do whatever it takes to do so.

 

People get wealth, than taste the life of luxury, and just want more of it. More, more more. Most rich people give only a fraction of their wealth to charities, where as every else typically gives FAR more, percentage wise, of their money. Like I said before, your average rich folk only give their money away to make themselves look good, not because they care. Like how pewdiepie holds charity fundraisers and asks his fans to make up the vast majority of the donations......despite the fact that he makes over around 4 million a YEAR, he'll barely donate any himself. Because he doesn't care. The typical rich person is subhuman scum whom I reserve zero empathy for.

 

Again tho, off topic.

 

Also, if you can't see the difference between hunting animals for the sake of it (especially endangered animals), and killing animals for food, than there's no point in continuing to argue with you. And for the record, I'm of the opinion that if we no longer need to eat meat, than killing animals for it is immoral. I also know that me buying meat products isn't gonna change fuck all.

 

It's a general statement. I, for one, am opposed to hunting if you aren't going to eat what you kill, but since the purpose(so she claims) is to promote conservation, and she (supposedly) doesn't kill enough to damage the population, the positives outweigh the negative.

 

That's the problem, her justification is in serious doubt. The fact that she's wealthy just makes it much more likely that she's full of a shit and is just an evil bitch.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sir Wulfington

[Moonbacon 384]

I think this thread should be locked now.

[Twilight Dirac 721]

Yeah, no. Again, don't care if you "earned" it, doesn't mean you should waste. Most rich people are selfish, greedy scumbags who only want more for themselves, and could give a fuck less about other living beings. I mean, the best way to be wealthy is to stamp all over as many people as you can to gain more money, like look at CEO's who make MILLIONS (bobby kotick, who's name does not deserve to be capitalized, made 55 million last year) who charge their workers so little by comparison, as little as they can get away with. And if the company ain't making as much profit as before? They hack some of their workforce, while still keeping their fat paychecks intact. Again, the best way to make money is to disregard the lives of others when it benefits you. And people who want to be rich, who do, are typically content to do whatever it takes to do so.

 

CEO compensation does seem a bit strange.  However, said money belongs to the corporation and its investors and if its Board of Directories feel this is a wise investment, they are free to award such compensation.  If this decision proves to be foolish, the investors are always free to sell their dividends and invest in a corporation with better financial priorities.  And as long as the employees are treated well and compensated well, why should it even matter how much the CEO is getting paid?  The employees are still being properly compensated for their services.  And last time and checked, while Activision-Blizzard has been embroiled in some controversies, these are more along the lines of things like DRM and IP than mistreatment or poor compensation of employees.

 

 

 

People get wealth, than taste the life of luxury, and just want more of it. More, more more. Most rich people give only a fraction of their wealth to charities, where as every else typically gives FAR more, percentage wise, of their money. Like I said before, your average rich folk only give their money away to make themselves look good, not because they care. Like how pewdiepie holds charity fundraisers and asks his fans to make up the vast majority of the donations......despite the fact that he makes over around 4 million a YEAR, he'll barely donate any himself. Because he doesn't care. The typical rich person is subhuman scum whom I reserve zero empathy for.

 

Based on what?  A lot of the wealthy clearly donate enormous amounts of money.  You get organizations like the Bill and Melinda gates foundation which are created thanks to the massive donations of wealthy individuals.  Back when I was in high school many of the local business owners hosted events for students to help them prepare for their careers.  Wealthy individuals would support my local Church, the local Boy Scouts, the Boys and Girls club.  I even got a scholarship from a philanthropic foundation created by the donations of local businesses back when I entered college as an undergraduate.  The wealthy were out there in my community, taking parts in the schools, churches and community organizations alongside everyone else.

 

What are these people doing wrong anyway?   Most of the wealthy are business owners, doctors, surgeons, lawyers, contractors, veterinarians, engineers, scientist and other professionals.  They are performing services everybody needs for profit while hiring people as part of their business.  Many also have families and are also raising children.  They tend to take part in the community while also trying to make the world a better place for their kids.  They work the ass off the make the world a better place and yet you call them evil because they dare enjoy some of the fruits of their labor.

 

 

 

Also, if you can't see the difference between hunting animals for the sake of it (especially endangered animals), and killing animals for food, than there's no point in continuing to argue with you.  

 

As a general rule hunters eat what they kill.  It is considered highly unethical, even among hunters, to kill and animal with no intention of eating it. 

 

 

 

And for the record, I'm of the opinion that if we no longer need to eat meat, than killing animals for it is immoral. I also know that me buying meat products isn't gonna change fuck all.

 

It is not about what your purchase is going to change.  It is the fact by consuming meat, you are engaging in an activity that leads to the slaughter of animals for your personal benefit.  You know, exactly like the hunters are doing. 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Twilight Dirac

[Sir Wulfington 276]

CEO compensation does seem a bit strange.  However, said money belongs to the corporation and its investors and if its Board of Directories feel this is a wise investment, they are free to award such compensation.  If this decision proves to be foolish, the investors are always free to sell their dividends and invest in a corporation with better financial priorities.  And as long as the employees are treated well and compensated well, why should it even matter how much the CEO is getting paid?  The employees are still being properly compensated for their services.  And last time and checked, while Activision-Blizzard has been embroiled in some controversies, these are more along the lines of things like DRM and IP than mistreatment or poor compensation of employees.

 

 

 

 

Based on what?  A lot of the wealthy clearly donate enormous amounts of money.  You get organizations like the Bill and Melinda gates foundation which are created thanks to the massive donations of wealthy individuals.  Back when I was in high school many of the local business owners hosted events for students to help them prepare for their careers.  Wealthy individuals would support my local Church, the local Boy Scouts, the Boys and Girls club.  I even got a scholarship from a philanthropic foundation created by the donations of local businesses back when I entered college as an undergraduate.  The wealthy were out there in my community, taking parts in the schools, churches and community organizations alongside everyone else.

 

What are these people doing wrong anyway?   Most of the wealthy are business owners, doctors, surgeons, lawyers, contractors, veterinarians, engineers, scientist and other professionals.  They are performing services everybody needs for profit while hiring people as part of their business.  Many also have families and are also raising children.  They tend to take part in the community while also trying to make the world a better place for their kids.  They work the ass off the make the world a better place and yet you call them evil because they dare enjoy some of the fruits of their labor.

 

 

 

 

As a general rule hunters eat what they kill.  It is considered highly unethical, even among hunters, to kill and animal with no intention of eating it. 

 

 

 

 

It is not about what your purchase is going to change.  It is the fact by consuming meat, you are engaging in an activity that leads to the slaughter of animals for your personal benefit.  You know, exactly like the hunters are doing. 

Like I said, if they like the wealthy lifestyle, they're not good people, and anything "good" they do is for some selfish motivation. If they REALLY cared, they'd live modestly. And like I said, almost all rich people only give a small fraction of their wealth away, yet still keep enough to be wealthy. Bullshit thy care, they don't, they're full of shit. Yeah, SOME make jobs, and still charge themselves far more than the other employees. And no, the only reason CEO's make that much money is because they can, there is no benefit to giving so much of a company's profit to one individual. Nobody needs or deserves the amount that ceo's make. But if you have no problem with that, or the rich lifestyle in general, than don't continue speaking with me, I have no desire to talk to someone who supports such a morally bankrupt system. That goes for anyone else reading this, if you're on this guys side? Don't talk to me.

 

I've already explained what's wrong and I don't need to do again. And as I said, this has gone way off topic. I've said what I have to say on that argument, so I'm not gonna keep dragging it out.

 

 

And Kendall doesn't need to be killing these animals to eat, you can say "but teh villagurz", yeah, they're capable of providing for themselves, they're not handicapped, they don't need some white america to be their sole provider of food. Again, if she fucking cared, she'd donate, instead of killing.

And me ceasing my meat eating habits will not affect the meat industry at all, so what's the point of stopping? A lot of animals only exist because they're bred to be eaten, I believe. So even if 30% of people stopped eating meat, that would just reduce the amount of animals bred for consumption, it wouldn't stop meat-eating.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sir Wulfington

[BronyPony 575]

Like I said, if they like the wealthy lifestyle, they're not good people, and anything "good" they do is for some selfish motivation. If they REALLY cared, they'd live modestly. And like I said, almost all rich people only give a small fraction of their wealth away, yet still keep enough to be wealthy. Bullshit thy care, they don't, they're full of shit. Yeah, SOME make jobs, and still charge themselves far more than the other employees. And no, the only reason CEO's make that much money is because they can, there is no benefit to giving so much of a company's profit to one individual. Nobody needs or deserves the amount that ceo's make. But if you have no problem with that, or the rich lifestyle in general, than don't continue speaking with me, I have no desire to talk to someone who supports such a morally bankrupt system. That goes for anyone else reading this, if you're on this guys side? Don't talk to me.

(this thread needs to be locked. Clearly there is a bigger agenda on the OP's mind).

 

Well, by your standards I would consider you selfish because you have access to what is called the Internet, which is actually not a very available resource to a huge amount of people in the world, yet a company is going to such lengths to make what is known as the Outernet which is free internet for people all around the world. Yeah, they are really selfish. Your arguments don't even sound cynical. They sound paranoid. Also, if you are unwilling to hear us out and be biased we might as well have not this topic open.

 

 

 

I've already explained what's wrong and I don't need to do again. And as I said, this has gone way off topic. I've said what I have to say on that argument, so I'm not gonna keep dragging it out.

It actually seems like this is the only reason why you are against this hunter who simply wants to help charity while carrying out her hobby.

 

 

 

And Kendall doesn't need to be killing these animals to eat, you can say "but teh villagurz", yeah, they're capable of providing for themselves, they're not handicapped, they don't need some white america to be their sole provider of food. Again, if she fucking cared, she'd donate, instead of killing.

And me ceasing my meat eating habits will not affect the meat industry at all, so what's the point of stopping? A lot of animals only exist because they're bred to be eaten, I believe. So even if 30% of people stopped eating meat, that would just reduce the amount of animals bred for consumption, it wouldn't stop meat-eating.

White American? Really? As I recall, there are different ethnicity of Americans who help these people out who are starving and don't have access to resources needed to survive and care for themselves because their selfish government won't provide for them.

 

Meat is a necessity for the human body, no matter what. "Experts" that say that vegetables are the only requirement for the human body clearly have something up their flank because it is not true. Meat is required for a species that has a high intelligence and requires a lot of energy to survive because though plants store lots of energy, meats have the proper proteins needed.

 

And no the animals you refer to are not only meant to be eaten. Cows, for instance, are used for meat, the milk they produce, and the young that will come for the next generation. Of course, the reason why these industries exist is so people don't have to do it themselves. However, sometimes believe that these companies put hormones into the cows they have and prefer to hunt for their own meat. There is nothing wrong with this. She decides to hunt and donate the earnings to charity. 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,486]

I think it's funny when people make petitions on the internet and think that the government actually cares.

[BronyPony 575]

I think it's funny when people make petitions on the internet and think that the government actually cares.

Do you know how much  I love you? 

[Jeric 46,851]

Whoa, when did a debate about another Nation's Conservation and Tourism policy become linked to a Cap v Com discussion?

 

Can someone please give me a roadmap to this thing?

Edited July 29, 2014 by Jeric

[BronyPony 575]

Whoa, when did a debate about another Nation's Conservation and Tourism policy become linked to a Cap v Com discussion?

 

Can someone please give me a roadmap to this thing?

He started blurting out about rich people and them being greedy bastards(southern accent).

Edited July 29, 2014 by BronyPony

[Jeric 46,851]

He started blurting out about rich people and them being greedy bastards.

 

Gotcha. Well my views on affluence and whether or not it has any bearing on a persons self worth aside, the Kendall Jones thing appears to be overblow. In general, I try not to jump to conclusions about a policy in another country. It has to be a damn good reason for me to want to interfere. This issue does not qualify. Let Zimbabwe be Zimbabwe.

 

Yet again, the truth resists simplicity.

[King 5,625]

Alright ladies and gentleman, seems we're done here.

If you can't behave like civil human beings and discuss something without it turning into a fight then you won't be allowed to discuss it any longer.

Come on guys, its not hard to have a mature conversation.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dawn Rider