Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "TRUMP-BIDEN Debate REACTION: Fauci, Masks, u0026 Green New Deal!" video.

Boxers or briefs?
6
@Naylor Broughton Too bad my content response disappeared. This channel may not allow links, as they can be misused and are hard to monitor, and I had a link to back up my point on "influencers" who tell the blatant lie that you have to "accept responsibility" in order to "turn your life around." (There was a fascinating story about one "Jane Buckingham" who made a career spreading that advice, and then got busted in the college admissions scandal when she did the opposite of what she preached.) The other point was investment bankers and corporate C-suite executives and corporate raiders all make their millions by minimizing risk -- which means minimizing the responsibility they would need to assume if their bets, er, I mean their investments, go south. Offloading responsibility is how money is made. It is what the corporate form itself is designed to do, shelter people from having to take personal responsibility for the ramifications of business decisions. (That's why Tony Hayward never had to pay back salary, bonuses, stock options . . . Why Wall Street never had clawbacks, etc. That's also why they keep telling YOU to "take responsibility!")
3
It will be nice gift wrapping. There will be new gift wrapping jobs. Are you against jobs?
3
@Naylor Broughton Last line you wrote: THIS
2
@kyleolin3566 I think the whole question of "responsibility" is very complex, and has been thoroughly poisoned. When Victor Frankl talks about responsibility, or Albert Camus talks about responsibility, it is not the same concept as you see bandied around to dupe people and get them to behave in ways that are good for the money hoarders but not so good for anyone else, and especially not for the people they are preaching to. By "responsibility," Frankl and Camus mean something that is unrelated to getting money -- and unrelated to blame.
2
@kyleolin3566 The corporate form itself is designed to limit liability. That is its purpose, to allow people to do business without exposing themselves to personal liability. This is why no one could go after Tony Hayward's assets, only the corporate assets of BP, for example. That is the corporate form working as intended. In England, they forthrightly call it "Limited," for "limited liability." (In French and Spanish, "S.A." always had a negative connotation. In America, "incorporated" sounds so formidable. Have to concede, the English are straight up empirical, no spin either way on that one.)
2
@Naylor Broughton How come tens of millions of people "made some bad choices?" And how come at most 10%, and probably far fewer, could possibly hope to fund their own retirement without Social Security or a reverse mortgage? IOW, how is something that is NOT WORKING for between 80 and 95% of people be a good plan? Are they all making some "bad choices?" That is not possible. The answer has to be elsewhere.
1
Cannabis Dreams No need to get snippy. Who cued you to insult someone who is telling you their story as they see it, and as best they can at this moment? Why would you do that? What dog whistle are you obeying?
1
@Naylor Broughton Never, ever, EVER speak a critical word about family, especially a parent, except among your very closest and behind closed doors, and then only when necessary. (That's advice no one will pay me for, but it's the best advice you'll ever hear in this venue.)
1
Haya Almousa Jane Buckingham, is that you? :D
1