16400 pts ยท January 31, 2014
It's all made out of the same stuff.
You can't convince me he's not a wizard and that's the trapped soul of someone who didn't floss everyday.
MRW someone says "Oh and there will be free food too."
One of my favorite quotes by far.
And I'm just over here in the corner having done no drugs ugly as fuck.
I've heard people say that they should have been immediately arrested and deported. I think this was a pretty awesome thing the pres did.
Who says its not a toddler dressed as a bat?
I was felt bad for the other houses because you just knew that Dumbledore was going to favor the chosen one's house.
Without doing good, what does that leave you with?
Because that's the right thing to do. There really is no reason to do 'good' or endorse 'justice' beyond the reason for itself.
'Not all bad', but that hardly evens the scales against the bad. And whose is to say that those engineers wouldn't have become so without?
I think there is an extent where expenditure on consumption expands into detriment of society.
shouldn't then that those with greater capability to help, help more?
I don't find that hypocritical at all, as our society is governed by wealth indicators, greater wealth increasing a person's ability to do..
you can afford to direct your financial efforts to the needy, nobody needs a million dollar anything while they are people in poverty.
My point is that, do you think that someone can earn the right to spend $70 million on a house? When you achieve that amount of prosperity..
consider the lifestyle that I live to be frugal
if you're saying the minimal amount of food, shelter, and water, then no, but I would consider that measure unrealistic. However, I do
at least 'act wealthy' with their consumer habits.
majority share of it should be spent on something that betters the world. I think, controversially, that no one should be wealthy or
I'm not calling him Scrooge McDuck, I just think that no one should have a $70 million dollar house. When you have that kind of money, the
Maybe, matters on what you define as 'necessity'. I think it's reasonable that everyone spend money on luxuries for themselves, but....
Volunteering comprising of food pantry and flood-work, as well as acting as council to suicidal teens.
I struggle with the reality that what you said would be commonly accepted by most people.
Whoops, I meant $69.5 million. For some reason the 500k moved a decimal point there.
Or , hear me out, you could have bought a normal house and used $65 million to improve the world, but whatever.
All these justified percentages being that great is zany.
I feel that would have been more enjoyable to read and watch.
It never does.
Yeah that's weird, should work now though.
It's all made out of the same stuff.
You can't convince me he's not a wizard and that's the trapped soul of someone who didn't floss everyday.
MRW someone says "Oh and there will be free food too."
One of my favorite quotes by far.
And I'm just over here in the corner having done no drugs ugly as fuck.
I've heard people say that they should have been immediately arrested and deported. I think this was a pretty awesome thing the pres did.
Who says its not a toddler dressed as a bat?
I was felt bad for the other houses because you just knew that Dumbledore was going to favor the chosen one's house.
Without doing good, what does that leave you with?
Because that's the right thing to do. There really is no reason to do 'good' or endorse 'justice' beyond the reason for itself.
'Not all bad', but that hardly evens the scales against the bad. And whose is to say that those engineers wouldn't have become so without?
I think there is an extent where expenditure on consumption expands into detriment of society.
shouldn't then that those with greater capability to help, help more?
I don't find that hypocritical at all, as our society is governed by wealth indicators, greater wealth increasing a person's ability to do..
you can afford to direct your financial efforts to the needy, nobody needs a million dollar anything while they are people in poverty.
My point is that, do you think that someone can earn the right to spend $70 million on a house? When you achieve that amount of prosperity..
consider the lifestyle that I live to be frugal
if you're saying the minimal amount of food, shelter, and water, then no, but I would consider that measure unrealistic. However, I do
at least 'act wealthy' with their consumer habits.
majority share of it should be spent on something that betters the world. I think, controversially, that no one should be wealthy or
I'm not calling him Scrooge McDuck, I just think that no one should have a $70 million dollar house. When you have that kind of money, the
Maybe, matters on what you define as 'necessity'. I think it's reasonable that everyone spend money on luxuries for themselves, but....
Volunteering comprising of food pantry and flood-work, as well as acting as council to suicidal teens.
I struggle with the reality that what you said would be commonly accepted by most people.
Whoops, I meant $69.5 million. For some reason the 500k moved a decimal point there.
Or , hear me out, you could have bought a normal house and used $65 million to improve the world, but whatever.
All these justified percentages being that great is zany.
I feel that would have been more enjoyable to read and watch.
It never does.
Yeah that's weird, should work now though.