Hate and hating the hater.

[dimreepr]

anybody's fair share, under any system would be a 10th of their income

 

what one does with the other 90 percent is not your business

 

if some consume and some save, and at the end of the day I have a dollar and you a dime, you don't deserve another dime from me and me a penny from you

 

 

The rich have a greater chance of threading a camel through a needle than understanding why this is wrong.

[Phi for All]

but phi, the constitution asks one to pledge their honor and their wealth to the nation

 

Americans that have already pledged their honor and wealth have given already something fully valuable

 

They receive the protection of the rest of us for this pledge.

 

There was never a bargain that stated, you live and rest of us will feed and cloth you, pay for your education, and your house and your medical care...that is everything.

 

You are suggesting one gets everything just for being alive? No You have to make the pledge, and in return you get life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The steak sandwich, and the apartment, and the car and the Aspirin tablet you will have to earn on your own.

 

I'm not afraid that if I offer the benefits without demanding a pledge, that I'll get screwed. I'm confident that honor is going to be a big part of being a citizen of a country that prizes it's People.

 

So yes, I'm offering all the things I've talked about with no strings attached, other than you pay your taxes when you earn money, and obey the laws of the land. And if it's all done the way it's been done in the distant past, society is overall more prosperous. I guess to conservative folks who are well-off, this makes their own success seem less worthy for some reason, almost the same way some people think gay marriage makes heterosexual marriage worth less.

 

I believe humans who agree to be part of a society are already giving up a lot, and that it's the society who gains the most, if only all its members could see that.

[tar]

how about, for historical support, the fact that tithing was the rule in the Old Testament and the Koran. Followed by half the population of the world.

 

And in terms of a system working, or not working, we have the system we have, and are the wealthiest country on Earth with a large percentage of the population not starving, and with plenty of stuff and opportunity and freedom for everybody. The poorest of the next 10 people you see today, if you live in the United States, will be better off than most of the people in the poorest country on the planet.

 

That is to say, our system obviously works better than the system in place in the poorest country on Earth, and in any case our system is more workable than yours, because your system works only in your imagination and has not yet been tested here.

Phi,

 

Our's is still a country people desire to come to. To be Americans, to have freedom and choice and protection from oppression, and the opportunity. They don't come for free stuff.

 

Regards, TAR

Unless perhaps they will come for free stuff if you offer it.

Edited June 16, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

how about, for historical support, the fact that tithing was the rule in the Old Testament and the Koran. Followed by half the population of the world.

 

And in terms of a system working, or not working, we have the system we have, and are the wealthiest country on Earth with a large percentage of the population not starving, and with plenty of stuff and opportunity and freedom for everybody. The poorest of the next 10 people you see today, if you live in the United States, will be better off than most of the people in the poorest country on the planet.

 

That is to say, our system obviously works better than the system in place in the poorest country on Earth, and in any case our system is more workable than yours, because your system works only in your imagination and has not yet been tested here.

Phi,

 

Our's is still a country people desire to come to. To be Americans, to have freedom and choice and protection from oppression, and the opportunity. They don't come for free stuff.

 

Regards, TAR

Unless perhaps they will come for free stuff if you offer it.

 

 

I see, you want to have your cake and eat it; did that tithe give you protection or support or infrastructure or healthcare etc (what did the Romans ever do for us eh )... This is, as Phi has so eloquently pointed out, the fundamental choice, you either pay for it or you loose it.

Edited June 17, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

I don't mind paying for collective stuff, or for paying for my own upkeep. I mind paying for someone else's personal upkeep. And social security does not count, because the individual pays soc securtity insurance all their life and gets back according to what she paid in. There is a difference between paying for a highway or paying for a war or construction bond, or pension and paying for somebody else's food, clothing, shelter, transportation, school, and medical care as Phi wishes to do.

and he doesn't even want to pay for it with his own money, he wants to rob from the rich and give to the poor and the problem with the communist model is that you can survive without giving a darn thing to the collective, and you can work your butt off and get exactly the same subsistence existence as everybody else

lets just hypothetically take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor...where do you get your survival funds from, next month, when there is nobody left with stored value?

I was raised with the Protestant work ethic where delayed gratification was employed.

What sense does it make to delay your own gratification, save up money, invest money, loan out money for other peoples use, just so Phi can look at what you did for yourself take it and gratify somebody else instantly with what you waited to use.

its like saving your dessert so you can have a midnight snack and then at midnight somebody else eats your piece of cake

Edited June 17, 2016 by tar

[CharonY]

Would you put money down to decrease crime and improve public health?

[tar]

and there is a difference between paying for the health care of a wounded vet and paying for your neighbor's Aspirin

charonY,

 

Of course I would, and already have. In taxes and charity and contribution of time and money to Citizens Against Drug Abuse in my town and such.

 

But paying disability to unemployed able bodied folk in W. Va. that winds up paying for Meth or Oxycodone is not my idea of putting money down to improve public health.

 

Have we not been concerned with lowing crime and impoving public health forever?

 

There are lots of police and jails and hospitals and reaearch facilities in Universities. I already support all that. Are you asking for more? In what form?

 

Regards, TAR

But forget the Bernie arguments, that is not the point for this thread, The point is why do you hate me for wanting to eat my midnight snack. When did I become responsible for everybody else/s happiness at my expense, and how does that situation and feeling on my part earn your scorn? And how does that situation make me a hater?

[Phi for All]

I don't mind paying for collective stuff, or for paying for my own upkeep. I mind paying for someone else's personal upkeep. And social security does not count, because the individual pays soc securtity insurance all their life and gets back according to what she paid in. There is a difference between paying for a highway or paying for a war or construction bond, or pension and paying for somebody else's food, clothing, shelter, transportation, school, and medical care as Phi wishes to do.

and he doesn't even want to pay for it with his own money, he wants to rob from the rich and give to the poor and the problem with the communist model is that you can survive without giving a darn thing to the collective, and you can work your butt off and get exactly the same subsistence existence as everybody else

 

Because we were so Communist under Eisenhower? Honestly, at some point you have to be embarrassed about being so obtuse whenever you're replying to defend your conservatism.

 

Did Ike rob from the rich with his 91% tax rate for the top bracket of wealth? I'll give you a hint, the rate was even higher before he took office. It's what smart nations do to avoid exactly what's happening now, too much wealth at the top and not enough spread around to keep the economy robust.

 

Corporate America has screwed over workers since Nixon, constantly shaving a bit from middle class wages and funneling it to the top. Now we want it back. Decent wages, corporations aren't people, and they should pay more than their share because they use more than their share of the infrastructure. We don't mind that they do, we mind that they're trying to weasel out of it, with the help of conservatives like you.

 

None of this is extraordinary. This is an historical fix that's worked before, except now these assholes are in control of the media as well, so they get folks like you on their side to talk about work ethic (like we don't have any), and class warfare (it's not a war, you screwed us and we want to fix it), and hating the wealthy (never said it, those were your words in my mouth). You've been the biggest help to all the really awful corporations that do the most damage, like the arms merchants and the ones who pollute wherever they can get away with it. You folks who identify as conservatives are the biggest haters on the planet, and you go along with corrupt leadership just because they say they're afraid of the same things you are.

 

I don't want your voice stifled, but I look at conservatives the way I look at terrorists. If you didn't have all this power you stole from the rest of us, society could deal with your extremist, bigoted views the way we deal with other problems. But you've got too much money, the way terrorists get too much money, and now you're an immense pain in the ass for the rest of us who would like to live a little friendlier, and more prosperously, for everyone and not just the ones who already have the most.

[dimreepr]

and there is a difference between paying for the health care of a wounded vet and paying for your neighbor's Aspirin

charonY,

 

Of course I would, and already have. In taxes and charity and contribution of time and money to Citizens Against Drug Abuse in my town and such.

 

But paying disability to unemployed able bodied folk in W. Va. that winds up paying for Meth or Oxycodone is not my idea of putting money down to improve public health.

 

Have we not been concerned with lowing crime and impoving public health forever?

 

There are lots of police and jails and hospitals and reaearch facilities in Universities. I already support all that. Are you asking for more? In what form?

 

Regards, TAR

But forget the Bernie arguments, that is not the point for this thread, The point is why do you hate me for wanting to eat my midnight snack. When did I become responsible for everybody else/s happiness at my expense, and how does that situation and feeling on my part earn your scorn? And how does that situation make me a hater?

 

 

You're more than welcome to have your cake and not eat it, although I prefer to just eat cake.

Edited June 17, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

Phi,

 

So you feel toward me how you feel toward terrorists, but you don't hate me?

 

Regards, TAR

for instance hatred against the manufacturers of AR-15s translates into hatred against greedy corporations, including corporations that are not greedy, and the NRA, including anybody who owns a gun and belongs to the NRA, and hatred for the tea party translates into hatred for republicans whether they hate Palin or love her, etc. etc. It is perfectly OK to hate Republicans if you are a progressive. You have labeled me conservative and anything I do or say is prejudged as evil or stupid or both, with no redeeming social value. Yet I am the hater in your equation.

 

Interesting. I think I understand hate a little better now.

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

So you feel toward me how you feel toward terrorists, but you don't hate me?

 

Regards, TAR

 

You're a product of our society. You're not alone, there's a lot of you that are more susceptible to manipulation by emotion. Pity is more accurate, it's a far cry from hate.

 

Since I pretty clearly detailed how I equated conservatives to terrorists (it was the part about how both your extremist views are normally dealt with in society until you get too much money and power), I have to assume you're being manipulative by making it seem like I said you're EXACTLY like terrorists. In virtually every discussion with you, you find myriad ways to misinterpret what I'm saying. It really only happens with you, MigL, and waitforufo, the most outspoken of our conservatives.

 

Statistically, it would be weird that none of you can understand a rational argument, so I have to assume it's intentional, and it's because you are so emotionally tied to your viewpoint that you can't recognize reason anymore when it comes to those topics, and you have no reasonable arguments, so you pretend to be outraged at things I didn't say. It's not helpful, I don't like it, but I don't hate you, any more than I waste time hating anybody.

[tar]

Phi,

 

So if you are against a thing based on reason, then the people who feel differently are worthy of your pity, but if you are against a thing based on emotion then the people who think differently are worthy of your anger and hatred?

 

I use the words "feel differently" when talking about reason, and the words "think differently" when talking about emotional stances, because I want to emphasize the fact that people basing their actions on reason are putting their emotions aside, where people basing their actions on emotions are putting their reason aside.

 

I would argue that we all have a component of reason and a component of emotion underlying our stances, and decisions, desires and actions, and it is possible to have a stance that differs from somebody else's. And hating the hater has to do with getting emotional about the unreasonable, or ugly stance of the other.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 18, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

I don't mind paying for collective stuff, or for paying for my own upkeep. I mind paying for someone else's personal upkeep. And social security does not count, because the individual pays soc securtity insurance all their life and gets back according to what she paid in. There is a difference between paying for a highway or paying for a war or construction bond, or pension and paying for somebody else's food, clothing, shelter, transportation, school, and medical care as Phi wishes to do.

and he doesn't even want to pay for it with his own money, he wants to rob from the rich and give to the poor and the problem with the communist model is that you can survive without giving a darn thing to the collective, and you can work your butt off and get exactly the same subsistence existence as everybody else

lets just hypothetically take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor...where do you get your survival funds from, next month, when there is nobody left with stored value?

I was raised with the Protestant work ethic where delayed gratification was employed.

What sense does it make to delay your own gratification, save up money, invest money, loan out money for other peoples use, just so Phi can look at what you did for yourself take it and gratify somebody else instantly with what you waited to use.

its like saving your dessert so you can have a midnight snack and then at midnight somebody else eats your piece of cake

 

 

The best way to protect yourself from poverty is to make it disappear, because if nobody is poor then neither can you be.

So if you are against a thing based on reason, then the people who feel differently are worthy of your pity, but if you are against a thing based on emotion then the people who think differently are worthy of your anger and hatred?

 

I use the words "feel differently" when talking about reason, and the words "think differently" when talking about emotional stances, because I want to emphasize the fact that people basing their actions on reason are putting their emotions aside, where people basing their actions on emotions are putting their reason aside.

 

I would argue that we all have a component of reason and a component of emotion underlying our stances, and decisions, desires and actions, and it is possible to have a stance that differs from somebody else's. And hating the hater has to do with getting emotional about the unreasonable, or ugly stance of the other.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

I sometimes get angry at your persistence but I don’t hate you for it, why would I?

 

Hate only happens when we forget or fail to understand the value of tolerance; did you forget?

Edited June 18, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

I fail to understand what part of my stances indicates to you that I have forgotten to be tolerant.

 

I think it important to be understanding and tolerant of the boss and the money lender and the guy on the big boat and the businessman and the salesman and the factory owner and the university donor and the rich guy that wills his wealth to the hospital, and the project planner and the guy running the particle collider, because we are not poor because of them. I reject the notion, that getting rid of republicans would solve all our problems. John Lennon's imagine is a good idea, but once we are all standing naked in the field loving each other, we for sure are going to get hungry for lunch, and if nobody prepared a picnic basket, there is going to be an issue.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 18, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

its like saving your dessert so you can have a midnight snack and then at midnight somebody else eats your piece of cake

 

 

 

What if that somebody was starving and you just get to the cake first, because you’re not, would you still enjoy your treat?

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

well yes, I eat regardless of the fact that somebody is starving in an African drought. So do you.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

dimreeper,

 

I think it important to be understanding and tolerant of the boss and the money lender and the guy on the big boat and the businessman and the salesman and the factory owner and the university donor and the rich guy that wills his wealth to the hospital, and the project planner and the guy running the particle collider, because we are not poor because of them. I reject the notion, that getting rid of republicans would solve all our problems. John Lennon's imagine is a good idea, but once we are all standing naked in the field loving each other, we for sure are going to get hungry for lunch, and if nobody prepared a picnic basket, there is going to be an issue.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

This answers my question quite well; basically you’d be happy for the starving man to die, as long as you don’t have to witness the pleading eye’s as the life seeps away or hear the whimpering get weaker until the final rattle.

 

 

I fail to understand, what part of my stances indicates to you that I have forgotten to be tolerant.

 

 

Edit/ added the coma for emphasis.

 

That's my point.

dimreepr,

 

well yes, I eat regardless of the fact that somebody is starving in an African drought. So do you.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

What about your neighbours?

Edited June 18, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

How much of the world do you figure I am responsible for? And if the rich should do more, the question remains, how could they do anything for anybody if they were not rich?

 

Wealth and value are not automatic, you have to work for it, build it, construct the means of production. All things being equal, the guy in Africa is as responsible for me, as I am for him.

 

It is disrespectful of the guy to suggest that he is my ward.

 

I argue for personal responsibility and for taking care of each other, and the system that protects us all. But the system is not just a cow that we can suckle, without protecting it and feeding it.

 

It is a two way street, and most of us are partners with each other to get the thing done. I don't see a third of the population as my enemy, as those like Hilary, who hate Republicans, do.

 

So tell me, where the things I say and the things I do, show intolerance, or hatred. I just don't think you are reading me right.

 

Regards, TAR

I help my neighbors, when they are in trouble.

 

My mother was a bag lady for the last part of her life. She chose to be such. She gave to the hungry even when she had little. I am not as good as she was, but I am neither the cause of poverty, nor against charity. But I do feel that we live in a very good, very fair, very caring society, that offers opportunity to all. Free education, life support for people in need, safety and security, and a decent infrastructure to move around in. Poverty should not exist in a rich country, but neither should it be encouraged, expected, enabled or considered to be an automatic acceptable condition . First responsible party in being not hungry, is the individual, who should work toward a condition under which food will be on the table. This is not a right or a privilege, it is a fact of nature that you get hungry and die if you don't eat, and it is your responsibility to do something to prevent your own death, and ensure your own survival.

 

I was not suggesting I would eat the cake in front of a starving man, I was suggesting it would be unfair if my sister, who had eaten her cake after dinner, ate mine, for a midnight snack.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 18, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

Wealth and value are not automatic,

 

 

Nor is poverty.

 

It’s not the poor that will make you poor, it’s the bank that forecloses despite the knowledge that the dept is payable, that could be you BTW and if it did happen to you, you’d better hope to find a, more, tolerant stranger.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

I disagree. Poverty is the automatic state. The first level in the hierarchy of needs is food clothing and shelter. On the savanna or in the woods, man against nature, we are naked and afraid, soon to die of thirst or hunger or disease or exposure or animal bite or poison plant. Civilization and family insulate us from those things. We are protected by our parents and they teach us how to survive. We in turn protect our children and teach them to survive. The first line of defense against automatic poverty is a plan to avoid it, and the execution of the plan.

 

not my job to provide for 8 billion

 

it is the 8 billion's job to provide for themselves

for instance let's say I staked out an area and planted a pear tree and protected it from the birds, and the squirrels and the bear and come fall there was no food in the neighborhood but the pears

 

I would share the pears but I would not let a cold person chop it down for firewood.

Edited June 18, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

I disagree. Poverty is the automatic state. The first level in the hierarchy of needs is food clothing and shelter. On the savanna or in the woods, man against nature, we are naked and afraid, soon to die of thirst or hunger or disease or exposure or animal bite or poison plant. Civilization and family insulate us from those things. We are protected by our parents and they teach us how to survive. We in turn protect our children and teach them to survive. The first line of defense against automatic poverty is a plan to avoid it, and the execution of the plan.

 

not my job to provide for 8 billion

 

it is the 8 billion's job to provide for themselves

for instance let's say I staked out an area and planted a pear tree and protected it from the birds, and the squirrels and the bear and come fall there was no food in the neighborhood but the pears

 

I would share the pears but I would not let a cold person chop it down for firewood.

 

 

 

You have WAY more than you actually need, did you achieve that alone?

 

Did you build your house/car/phone, or did you rely on others?

 

Selfishness creates the poverty, co-operation creates the wealth.

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

So if you are against a thing based on reason, then the people who feel differently are worthy of your pity, but if you are against a thing based on emotion then the people who think differently are worthy of your anger and hatred?

 

Now you're trying to equate anger and hatred? And again accuse me of hatred when I've already said I don't hate anybody? You do this a lot, arguing against a very specific point with an ever-widening brush, making a strawman out of your own reply as well as putting more words in my mouth while moving the goalpost. Please stop trying to rearrange what I've said to suit yourself, and just read it. Am I so hard to understand?

 

My point in all this is that hate is fed by ignorance and fear, two of the hallmarks of the folks who label themselves conservative. These folks have tainted so much good with their policies. Our country has a hybrid ideology (as it should), utilizing capitalism, socialism, communism, and other ideologies where needed. But these ignorant, fearful conservatives have allowed Big Business to focus on capitalism to the exclusion of all else, even tainting the socialist policies we have, and making them weak where they should be some of our strongest assets as a nation. Do you really think this is a good choice, becoming 100% capitalist? When has it ever been a good choice to be only one thing?

 

You can't have effective capitalism unless the People can participate effectively in the economy. If they can't, this breeds frustration, which breeds anger, which can lead to hatred. History and modern example show us how we can easily have a balance between our ideologies, so we can use each where it makes the most sense. But we've got to stop hampering our social efforts to cater to capitalism. The People are angry, they know they've been screwed by bankers and lawyers and politicians, the same folks who are telling them they can save them. Our capitalist side is doing phenomenally well, and that means the People should be doing much better. That they aren't means something isn't right. We know exactly what it is, and exactly how to fix it in a way that gives the most prosperity to all, using monies that should have been going to the workers all along for the last 60 years.

 

A revolution in the near future seems likely. We can't sustain this level of hate; it will explode if not defused. If the revolution is to be based on hope and prosperity, and not fear and hatred, I'd say we shouldn't put anyone in charge who identifies as conservative. Too many are either outright bigots, or are convinced Big Business can do no wrong (or not enough wrong to be angry with them).

[tar]

Trump made an interesting observation and made a comment about it, he used the size of his rallies, usually during the day, to suggest that the people were there because they did not have jobs.

 

I don't have a job.

 

Full time jobs are fewer since Obama care forced employers over a certain number of employees to pay some of the insurance for workers that worked over 37 and half hours in a week.

Result, more people worked less than 37 and a half hours in a week, or became consultants, or contract employees for a project, or any number of other ways to avoid the expense of covering people's health care.

 

It is a dream to think that one can just make it a law to pay all workers 15 dollars an hour and then everybody will be out of poverty. It will not work, for 2 reasons. One, jobs not worth 15 dollars an hour can not pay 15 dollars an hour. The places will find ways to do with less employees, more automation, or simply close their doors and invest in an endeavor that will make money. The other reason it won't work is that if everybody is making 15 dollars for adding value of 7 dollars then the value of 15 dollars will become eventually near the value of 7. That is, if you give everybody 1000 dollars an hour, 100,000 dollar houses will go for 10,000,000 and buying a 5 dollar hamburger will cost you 500 dollars.

 

It will still cost you more to paint your house, than to mow your lawn. And bosses will still get paid more than workers. And people with higher skills, better education, superior work quality, and higher levels of production will still get paid more, and there will still be inequality.

 

You say we have been doing it wrong for 60 years, yet there are millions wearing designer jeans and are by their waist lines less than starving. And we are the richest country in the world, the policeman of the world and a bastion of human rights, civil rights, gender rights, gay rights and are a world leader in medicine, science, industry, weaponry, computer science and space exploration, as well as a leader in charitable works both private and governmental. What ever it is we have been doing for the last 60 years, is not without its upside.

 

Labeling me a conservative and a hater because of being conservative is not a logical step. And suggesting that conservatives have both ruined the place and been in charge of the place cannot both be true, if the place is doing as well as it is doing.

 

Trump says make America great again. Hilary says we are already great. Bernie and you say we are run by the rich. What do you think. Is this our country or somebody else's. If you want a revolution, who do you want to kill and who do you want to give the power to. The people that are in power are already people. Are already Americans that love their country, their families and each other. Why would you want to change dice when you are rolling sevens already.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 18, 2016 by tar

[Moontanman]

Hate only harms the person doing the hatting, the person being hatted is totally unaffected!

[dimreepr]

Trump made an interesting observation and made a comment about it, he used the size of his rallies, usually during the day, to suggest that the people were there because they did not have jobs.

 

I don't have a job.

 

Full time jobs are fewer since Obama care forced employers over a certain number of employees to pay some of the insurance for workers that worked over 37 and half hours in a week.

Result, more people worked less than 37 and a half hours in a week, or became consultants, or contract employees for a project, or any number of other ways to avoid the expense of covering people's health care.

 

It is a dream to think that one can just make it a law to pay all workers 15 dollars an hour and then everybody will be out of poverty. It will not work, for 2 reasons. One, jobs not worth 15 dollars an hour can not pay 15 dollars an hour. The places will find ways to do with less employees, more automation, or simply close their doors and invest in an endeavor that will make money. The other reason it won't work is that if everybody is making 15 dollars for adding value of 7 dollars then the value of 15 dollars will become eventually near the value of 7. That is, if you give everybody 1000 dollars an hour, 100,000 dollar houses will go for 10,000,000 and buying a 5 dollar hamburger will cost you 500 dollars.

 

It will still cost you more to paint your house, than to mow your lawn. And bosses will still get paid more than workers. And people with higher skills, better education, superior work quality, and higher levels of production will still get paid more, and there will still be inequality.

 

You say we have been doing it wrong for 60 years, yet there are millions wearing designer jeans and are by their waist lines less than starving. And we are the richest country in the world, the policeman of the world and a bastion of human rights, civil rights, gender rights, gay rights and are a world leader in medicine, science, industry, weaponry, computer science and space exploration, as well as a leader in charitable works both private and governmental. What ever it is we have been doing for the last 60 years, is not without its upside.

 

Labeling me a conservative and a hater because of being conservative is not a logical step. And suggesting that conservatives have both ruined the place and been in charge of the place cannot both be true, if the place is doing as well as it is doing.

 

Trump says make America great again. Hilary says we are already great. Bernie and you say we are run by the rich. What do you think. Is this our country or somebody else's. If you want a revolution, who do you want to kill and who do you want to give the power to. The people that are in power are already people. Are already Americans that love their country, their families and each other. Why would you want to change dice when you are rolling sevens already.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Remember ‘tar’ with just a little misfortune you could be the guy you despise the most; that hobo on the corner alternating between mumbling and chugging on a hidden bottle.

 

If you want an excuse to ignore them, don’t come here for validation.