lol, nice
The description says he would never do it again.
The top comment was darkly hilarious:
Achievement unlocked: Lung Cancer.
That’s one perverted Xbox game.
I feel the pain just looking at him.
For me, one the most memorable parts of Rothbard’s crowing achievement, his epic History of Economic Thought, was his description of the communist experiment that took place in Münster in 1534-35. I like it so much I created an audio of it:
grant:
First pass looking at that:
“Oh, got a bunch of stuff with food stamps.”
Second pass looking at that:
“LOBSTER AND PORTERHOUSE STEAKS?!”
Third pass looking at that:
“WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING DRINKING DIET MOUNTAIN DEW WITH LOBSTER AND STEAK?! THAT DOESN’T MATCH AT ALL! TUCKER! JEFFREY TUCKER GET IN HERE AND DENOUNCE THIS TRAVESTY!”
Fourth pass looking at that:
“…I can’t believe I got madder at the fact that this person is mixing steak and lobster with mountain dew than they ran up a $140 food bill on luxury food items.”
Austrian blog, this post is on dollar backwardation:
Great job, Graham… that was a fascinating and enlightening bit of history… kind of like the 70 years of Soviet history compressed down to two years. Yikes.
Clayton -
As distasteful as it is, I agree with the ruling, but I still can’t believe he won.
http://fox2now.com/2012/10/26/man-sues-wife-for-being-incredibly-ugly-wins-120000/
Somebody has to explain to me what were the false pretenses.
Wait, does that mean that I can get my money back for all those dinners I spent on women that wore lots of make up?
That she was attractive by nature. As for your question, the dinners would be considered gifts. He actually made a binding agreement and invested in her based on false pretences.
I’d say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course, but he is the beholder in this case.
LOL, only if they told you “I never wear makeup”. Your question does make me withdraw my support of the ruling though, needing more information to decide.
Unfortunately, this is becoming less and less true. Marriage is a legal arrangement that entails no rights or obligations on either party except large wealth redistributions from the “high income earner” to the “low income earner” in the event of a divorce.
Clayton -
But you see, that’s still binding in some way. If it is as you say, and he is the high income earner, he would be forced to lose a lot by undergoing a regular divorce - and from a marriage that was entered into on false pretences. By suing, he has been able to escape that fate.
Copyright insanity, firsthand experience…
I play the piano. I have uploaded videos of my performance of Yiruma’s River Flows in You as well as Bach’s Air on the G string. While both videos are still viewable, they have been marked as “disputed” by “collection societies” which are apparently private coops of copyright holders that just troll YT and mark things as copyright violations willy-nilly.
Here’s a screenshot:
Clayton -
Somebody is claiming a copyright on Bach? Good grief!
And I thought the story of Waltzing Matilda’s US copyright was absurd. It was written by Australian poet in 1896 and the tune was borrowed from one or more songs that were already a hundred years old at that time. Then in 1941 an American copyrights it as an “original work”. The Aussies had to pay a dead American’s estate royalties for singing their own unofficial anthem at the Olympics.
Clayton++, that screencap is amazing.
Guess what everyone?
“Too Big to Fail” incentives banks to become larger
But remember, we need the government to protect us from big business.