Hornshire

Why are you attempting to apply logic to a scenario where none applies? Just let them thump their chest and scream that bigger equals better. It's not like their opinion informs your selection.

You know, you don't have to keep droning on wistfully about a society you don't partake of. You could instead simply engage it, and then shed all the anxiety and resentment born of unfamiliarity.

Gonna make a bold prediction here: You're not going to get back something you never had in the first place.

We've heard of people being married to a job before, but it's interesting to see someone have a codependent relationship with theirs.

The joke doesn't. But he did get us to notice him.

With few exceptions (a notable one being bigotry), one should never feel ashamed for voicing their genuine feelings. The difficulty for Us would be finding a person who meets said criteria.

Ninjas don't really engage in prolonged battles. Good ones don't, anyways. But it would certainly make for much better television. We'd settle for smoke bombs.

It's a passing* reference to one of his alternate handles. Rest assured, when your time comes, We will mourn with just as much reverence. *rimshot

Woe unto Britain. Where shall it find its cynicism now? How tragic.

Changed your stance on gay shit, have you?

Well, no actually. The energy problems facing a lot of developing nations wouldn't be resolved simply by introducing a new source, however massive. Distribution remains a prominent issue, due to a lack of supporting infrastructure. Also, why you hate pengus, Phillies?

Death is inevitable. Unleashing suffering beyond reckoning will not change this.

We'll stick to less toxic means, thanks.

Yeah. No one has ever considered a concept like fiscal responsibility, deficit spending, or entitlement reform, let alone made one such notion a central tenant of a political party platform. Certainly no one has argued these cases. And for sure, no one has dared even pay lip-service to them. But to answer your question, if the government did not possess the money to cover the costs of its expenditures, it would not collapse. In fact it would operate identically to how it does today. This is largely because, you know, currently it does not possess the money to cover its expenditures. It hasn't for most of recent history.

Not sure who's responsible, but We are so having a cookie on your behalf. Hope you like chocolate chip.

Why do you people get so proud that no one wants to reply to any of your shit?

Especially if you're taking cues from Rick Springfield.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/17/woman-defecates-throws-poop-tim-hortons-employee-during-altercation-canada-survellience-footage/618333002/ So it is a bathroom issue. But there's also a history between them.

Because, you know, We have mass.

At first We could only hear Laurel. Watched a couple other videos on youtube explaining the effect and still only heard Laurel. NY Times has this nifty page with a slider, and We had to go about two thirds towards Yanny before We could hear it, and now if We try really hard We can pick it out on the original. Which is pretty pointless because regardless of what one hears, it's actually just saying Laurel.

But... why?

Never could decide if We actually like that song. Overlaying it on a video with strongly political tones doesn't produce any more clarity.

Purpose is not a thing to be found, as though it were lodged beneath the sofa cushions just waiting to be uncovered. It does not exist unto itself, separate from you- if it can be said to exist at all. Rather, it emerges out of your values and desires, far less effably than would be satisfying.

How paradoxical. We're on board.

It's meant to be a yeti. It doesn't look much like one though.