 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The
Dog's Tits Premium
core Girls,
Girlz, Grrrlz Beautifully
Wicked Anti-suckage Aussies
Up Your Arse
|
|
Live
Whacking Permalink Archive 7 August 2003 Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people. They think it's disgusting what these faggots do. They think the state should punish them for their depravity. If not, could they perhaps explain themselves? - Alex Singleton,
Samizdata
Niall has responded to my criticism of his lame ABC defence with this bizzaroworld interpretation of market forces:
Really? SBS has been surviving for over twenty years with near-zero ratings. And the ABC marches on, despite not being able to get anywhere near the commercial networks. In short: they aint popular, but they're surviving thanks to public funds.
Talk about thinking with yer arse: if I stop complaining then people would make me not pay for it? How does that work? "Excuse me minister: we have had zero complaints about the ABC this month. We'd better shut it down or we'll be killed by indifferent voters at the next election!" Public broadcasters rely on taxpayer dollars. As long as they get those dollars, they've survive. And they continue to get them because people are forced to pay for the ABC whether they like it or not.
Well, why do they have to?
I agree. The ABC should be canned because the government has no right to extract money from people for a service they don't want.
I prefer the murpack "monopoly" (note dude: it can't be a "monopoly" of there's more than one supplier) because I don't have to pay for it. And don't ya love leftie elitism? They're more popular, so they're "brainless". Nice going Niall, you egalitarian you.
Great,
you should have no problem getting private funds to run it then. Tim Blair is horrified by my potential four-wheeled purchases. As are most of his commentators (including Lileks). And I've gotten a ton of e-mail about this too. Paul Bickford writes: Blair's
giving you a right good slagging off over your choice of four-wheeled
transport, and rightly so; why would you want one of those horrible little
buzz-boxes? Coz they've got 4 wheels and they're cheap, dude. It's transport, you dig? That's the only reason I'm buying a car: transport. 4 wheels and a roof. It's to drive to work in, transport people and carry things, and that's it. Spending money on anything else is a waste of money. If I want speed thrills, I have my ZX-9, which can blow any car off the road. Why spend money I can't afford on something to get speed thrills I already get with my bike? Jake D. sez Before you make the worst decision in your life please take a moment to think. All those cars suck more than a $2000.00 hooker on speed. Perhaps consider an older Ute or station-wagon - both can carry heaps of stuff and no one will ask you if it's your girlfriend's/Mum's. 1. Anyone
who buys a car on the basis of what other people think is a dick. The ute is a possibility though, They seem to be doing good deals on the Hilux. The bench seat can carry the driver + 2 passengers, so the giving-people-a-lift part is covered. And I can take my bikes in the back. As they're all pretty much unintelligible as a whole, here are excerpts from this one: "Slam Bam Thank You Frisco".......... - Australia's policy toward (so-called) refugees is likened to the Nazis:
- Richard's interesting views on parenting:
Mmmmkay..... - here he agonizes over the existential horror of American hotel pastry:
- and he's squealing his tits off again about technological progress (get a load of this):
Wait, there's more...
Or maybe
everyone will just get on with their lives like they always have, you
stinky old fart.
|
Motorcycles Guns
Support Brave Multinationals!!!
|
