ConnSKINS26

SI: Bezos & Amazon Want In ...On the Redskins?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, megared said:

 

It's a false narrative.  It's like me complaining about my employer because they don't offer 10%+ 401K matching, like the 'olden days'.  His goal was to transform the grocery store business model.  Inheriting inefficiencies that aren't cost sensible don't help with that objective.  That in of itself doesn't make him evil.  You can call it heartless..but again I'm not of the expectation that Bezos' wealth (which isn't from Whole Foods) should dictate his business decisions.  He had a particular purpose in mind for acquiring the company.  

 

 

But he's still considered one of the worst owners in the NBA.  He did the same thing with Grunsfield, that we're now going through with Allen.  No thanks on that.   

 

Isn't being heartless, pretty much in the same category as being evil? It sure as **** isn't in any good category. I don't remember any Saint Heartless kind of dudes up for canonization.

Now with that said, I am not coming from the place of labeling anyone as absolutely good or evil. I'm talking more about degrees of good and evil actions and that action that @Renegade7 brought up is way more on the evil side of the line than the good side and it shouldn't just be written off as a false narrative.

Bezos is greedy and selfish and would rather continue to make more money for himself than take a lesser portion while helping others do better. That doesn't make him wholly evil, but it does shift his axis or internal mixture to more of an evil degree. Some people get angry at that characterization, but that's because society hasn't developed and agreed upon a proper response to that level of over-abundance, because we value attaining over-abundance more than sharing with others. In fact we in this county see social pressure pushing for sharing as a violation of personal freedom.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Isn't being heartless, pretty much in the same category as being evil? It sure as **** isn't in any good category. I don't remember any Saint Heartless kind of dudes up for canonization.

 

It's been my stance that people with that level of success pretty much act similarly.  I'm not harping on the need to get an 'ethical' billionaire in here, because our major problem isn't primarily ethics.  It's a billionaire without a sense of direction, a vision for the team.  What principles guide the way the Redskins currently operate?  Is it a desire to win?  A desire to build a first class organization?   

 

30 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Now with that said, I am not coming from the place of labeling anyone as absolutely good or evil. I'm talking more about degrees of good and evil actions and that action that @Renegade7 brought up is way more on the evil side of the line than the good side and it shouldn't just be written off as a false narrative.

 

It was 2% of the WF workforce.  I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even make the decision directly himself.  Other than his grand vision of what Whole Foods should be, and the decision to buy them, I doubt he's setting HR policies, and digging into the weeds of minutiae.  I'd imagine he'd be much more worried about the trillion dollar company versus the policies at the one he paid $13 B for (exact reason why he'd be a perfect fit for the Redskins).  Blame him, if that's what you want to do, he is the guy in charge. 

 

IMO, It's just a reason for people to dislike him.  In order to be able to provide a minimum wage of $15/hour, WF execs/Bezos/whoever decided to discontinue production based bonuses (the reason people were peeing in bottles) and the insurance for PT employees working less than 20 hours/week.  He didn't owe them health insurance.  That isn't an industry standard.  It's no more evil than any other company increasing health care premiums (which is pretty much an annual occurrence, everywhere).  Why don't those companies eat the additional costs? 

 

30 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Bezos is greedy and selfish and would rather continue to make more money for himself than take a lesser portion while helping others do better. That doesn't make him wholly evil, but it does shift his axis or internal mixture to more of an evil degree. Some people get angry at that characterization, but that's because society hasn't developed and agreed upon a proper response to that level of over-abundance, because we value attaining over-abundance more than sharing with others. In fact we in this county see social pressure pushing for sharing as a violation of personal freedom.

 

That's what billionaires do, and in most cases how they amass their wealth.  It's a given.  And it's not exclusive to Bezos.   At the end of the day, his top priority is his responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.  No one wants to hear about benevolence in the boardroom lol.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, megared said:

 At the end of the day, his top priority is his responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.  No one wants to hear about benevolence in the boardroom lol.  

 

Ok Boomer.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ananoman said:

The problem is there won't be enough fans of the apposing teams to buy up the seats in his empty stadium in London with the putrid product he will be putting on the field.

 

I'm thinking this is more a play on leverage for the location & funding of the new stadium.  I'd love for it to be true (Bezo's interest), but more likely the Redskins are running out of options for the new stadium.  And none of the three places they want to go are ideal, or easy roads to get a stadium built. 

 

VA is pissed about Richmond so they aren't falling over themselves.  

 

MD's Gov just ended his efforts on acquiring the site near National Harbor once the rest of his government found out what he was doing.  

 

And the back room efforts Snyder tried to do in December, to change the stipulations of the leased federal land RFK sits on got nowhere.  Further that'll be even harder to get done because of the majority change in the House.  Which would also reignite the name debate.  Even if it does get through Congress, there's still the whole politics of DC to consider.  Not an ideal path either.

 

The market Snyder/Allen thought they'd be able to manufacture to extract further concessions and funding just isn't there.  So the next logical move is to put feelers out for selling the team, and/or threaten to relocate. 

 

Or it could be that Dan is trying to get Amazon sponsorship for funding of the new stadium.  That would put the ball back in the local governments' courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, megared said:

 

The market Snyder/Allen thought they'd be able to manufacture to extract further concessions and funding just isn't there.  So the next logical move is to put feelers out for selling the team, and/or threaten to relocate. 

 

Or it could be that Dan is trying to get Amazon sponsorship for funding of the new stadium.  That would put the ball back in the local governments' courts.

 

Ya, JLC jus came out and confirmed Snyder isnt talking on context of selling the franchise to Bezos or anyone else. 

 

Can see a deal where Bezos helps him pay for stadium for naming rights and other deals to get return on his investment.  But only thing less likely then Snyder selling the team is NFL approving him moving it.  6th largest market with multiple super bowls, if entire DMV blocks public funding, they will do the same for the expansion team.

 

Worst case scenario is NFL does say screw it and tells us to root for the Ravens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

 

Worst case scenario is NFL does say screw it and tells us to root for the Ravens.

 

They'd be too late.

 

Most everybody in Virginia, DC, Maryland, WV, NC, already root for the Ravens, Steelers, Cowturds, Panthers, or any other team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

They'd be too late.

 

Most everybody in Virginia, DC, Maryland, WV, NC, already root for the Ravens, Steelers, Cowturds, Panthers, or any other team.

 

I know, could be point of no return starting us in the face.  I'm not sold we'd get an expansion team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Ya, JLC jus came out and confirmed Snyder isnt talking on context of selling the franchise to Bezos or anyone else. 

 

Can see a deal where Bezos helps him pay for stadium for naming rights and other deals to get return on his investment.  But only thing less likely then Snyder selling the team is NFL approving him moving it.  6th largest market with multiple super bowls, if entire DMV blocks public funding, they will do the same for the expansion team.

 

Worst case scenario is NFL does say screw it and tells us to root for the Ravens.

 

Why would the DMV block it?  That doesn't make any sense unless I'm not understanding.  Get the politics out of it and there wouldn't be a problem, let alone those being a district and two entire states.  Like you said, a major market, too.

Wouldn't matter for some of us either way.  I'm loyal to the Redskins, not the D.C. team, I don't even live in the area anymore.  They could move to San Diego and they're still my team unless they pull a Browns and become a Ravens.  If the Redskins were resurrected like the Browns, then it would be different.  But if they get on the Mayflower and move to their own version of Indy, then I'd be a fan of the Own Version of Indy Redskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Ya, JLC jus came out and confirmed Snyder isnt talking on context of selling the franchise to Bezos or anyone else. 

 

It'd make absolutely zero sense for Snyder to sell right now, unless he received an offer he can't refuse, or he's eating PB&J sandwiches in the IMAX theater of his super yacht.  With the CBA set to be renewed, and the TV deal soon thereafter, assuming the NFL is still growing, he'd be leaving a lot of potential money on the table.  

 

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Can see a deal where Bezos helps him pay for stadium for naming rights and other deals to get return on his investment.  But only thing less likely then Snyder selling the team is NFL approving him moving it.  6th largest market with multiple super bowls, if entire DMV blocks public funding, they will do the same for the expansion team.

 

Worst case scenario is NFL does say screw it and tells us to root for the Ravens.

 

I could see the NFL stepping in and giving a certain level of funding towards a new stadium.  With all of the moves occurring, I don't believe location is sacred.  Los Angeles sat without a franchise forever.  The Raiders leaving Cali represents just as big of a loss, given their history. 

 

The Redskins in London would be perfect.  They could have a practice facility in Maine, and not even have to realign divisions.  😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, megared said:

 

It's been my stance that people with that level of success pretty much act similarly.  I'm not harping on the need to get an 'ethical' billionaire in here, because our major problem isn't primarily ethics.  It's a billionaire without a sense of direction, a vision for the team.  What principles guide the way the Redskins currently operate?  Is it a desire to win?  A desire to build a first class organization?   

 

 

It was 2% of the WF workforce.  I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even make the decision directly himself.  Other than his grand vision of what Whole Foods should be, and the decision to buy them, I doubt he's setting HR policies, and digging into the weeds of minutiae.  I'd imagine he'd be much more worried about the trillion dollar company versus the policies at the one he paid $13 B for (exact reason why he'd be a perfect fit for the Redskins).  Blame him, if that's what you want to do, he is the guy in charge.  

 

IMO, It's just a reason for people to dislike him.  In order to be able to provide a minimum wage of $15/hour, WF execs/Bezos/whoever decided to discontinue production based bonuses (the reason people were peeing in bottles) and the insurance for PT employees working less than 20 hours/week.  He didn't owe them health insurance.  That isn't an industry standard.  It's no more evil than any other company increasing health care premiums (which is pretty much an annual occurrence, everywhere).  Why don't those companies eat the additional costs? 

 

 

That's what billionaires do, and in most cases how they amass their wealth.  It's a given.  And it's not exclusive to Bezos.   At the end of the day, his top priority is his responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.  No one wants to hear about benevolence in the boardroom lol.  

 

Thanks for the response. I guess where we differ can be summed up by your last line. I not only want to hear and see benevolence/character in the boardroom, I demand it. It needs to be a requirement and it is unacceptable to me, that people waste their time turning into ****heads in some faustian bargain to amass extreme amounts of wealth and power.

I don't accept that "that's what billionaires do". **** them for behaving in this way. And lack of ethics is always a problem in my book.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Why would the DMV block it?  That doesn't make any sense unless I'm not understanding.  Get the politics out of it and there wouldn't be a problem, let alone those being a district and two entire states.  Like you said, a major market, too.

 

 

The metro is falling apart right now, I'd totally get behind blocking public funding.  I'm at a point I feel that way period about professional sports, but specific to the redskins, Snyder doesn't deserve it and the money can go to better use.

 

7 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:


Wouldn't matter for some of us either way.  I'm loyal to the Redskins, not the D.C. team, I don't even live in the area anymore.  They could move to San Diego and they're still my team unless they pull a Browns and become a Ravens.  If the Redskins were resurrected like the Browns, then it would be different.  But if they get on the Mayflower and move to their own version of Indy, then I'd be a fan of the Own Version of Indy Redskins.

 

I understand, jus not in same boat as you as a fan. I'm still in Alexandria, even if I stop following the team this directly impacts me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

It'd make absolutely zero sense for Snyder to sell right now, unless he received an offer he can't refuse, or he's eating PB&J sandwiches in the IMAX theater of his super yacht.  With the CBA set to be renewed, and the TV deal soon thereafter, assuming the NFL is still growing, he'd be leaving a lot of potential money on the table.  

 

The question I'd ask Snyder right now is he is a homer and doesnt believe he can turn this around, is holding on to it just to keep making money worth it? I absolutely believe the word on the street he has no idea what to do right now, is it more important to turn a profit then do what's best for the franchise?  Hes too toxic to get the folks he needs to turn this around, its denial and pride if he thinks otherwise, but hes not stupid, he knows.

 

7 minutes ago, megared said:

 

I could see the NFL stepping in and giving a certain level of funding towards a new stadium.  With all of the moves occurring, I don't believe location is sacred.  Los Angeles sat without a franchise forever.  The Raiders leaving Cali represents just as big of a loss, given their history. 

 

Have they ever done that before?  California has 4 teams right now, DC only has one.

 

7 minutes ago, megared said:

The Redskins in London would be perfect.  They could have a practice facility in Maine, and not even have to realign divisions.  😉

 

I wont follow them if they leave the area, I'll stop following football until DC gets another team, if that ever happens.  The neighboring franchises have carved up the outskirts, and what's left is shrinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Thanks for the response. I guess where we differ can be summed up by your last line. I not only want to hear and see benevolence/character in the boardroom, I demand it. It needs to be a requirement and it is unacceptable to me, that people waste their time turning into ****heads in some faustian bargain to amass extreme amounts of wealth and power.

I don't accept that "that's what billionaires do". **** them for behaving in this way. And lack of ethics is always a problem in my book.

 

Doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be a fan of this team.  There's other teams out there that treat their players better.  That wasn't criteria, or a condition of your fandom.  Admit it.  

 

You're holding Bezos to a standard you aren't enforcing for Dan.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

The question I'd ask Snyder right now is he is a homer and doesnt believe he can turn this around, is holding on to it just to keep making money worth it? I absolutely believe the word on the street he has no idea what to do right now, is it more important to turn a profit then do what's best for the franchise?  Hes too toxic to get the folks he needs to turn this around, its denial and pride if he thinks otherwise, but hes not stupid, he knows.

 

I think the super fan bit is drummed up to provide sympathy for him.  A smokescreen for "Look, he's trying to do the right thing.  No one wants to win more than Dan."  🙄

 

Fact is, he's had no problem monetizing any and everything he could to make a buck.  

 

The fan experience Lafemina was attempting to improve was halted the second it meant the Redskins may have to lower season ticket prices, and they couldn't throw unsold seats on the secondary market. 

 

That's been Dan's driving force...his bottom line.  I guess in a sense, you have to respect the consistency there.  

 

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Have they ever done that before?  California has 4 teams right now, DC only has one.

 

Yep.  Good business for them.  They gave the Rams $100 M and loaned the 49ers $200 M.  I think they've also given money for renovations. 

 

The money has to come from a lot of places...even if a stadium got local funding, taxpayers on average contribute $250 M.  That's still a large gap on a $2-3 B stadium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be a fan of this team.  There's other teams out there that treat their players better.  That wasn't criteria, or a condition of your fandom.  Admit it.  

 

You're holding Bezos to a standard you aren't enforcing for Dan.  

 

First of all you don't get to set my standards or my responses to those who fail those standards, especially when you seem to have none yourself in this specific matter.

Second, I haven't spent a single cent on the Redskins in the past 30 years and before that I was a kid who grew up rooting for them and didn't weigh such matters.

Third, I have already said on this forum that while I love the team, the front office is a cancer and like a cancer needs to be treated with the chemotherapy of losing so badly that they can't help but have to face the consequences.

So yes, it has been a criteria of my fandom and I am enforcing it, because their lack of integrity is having a direct impact on my support, both emotional and financial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewCliche21 said:

Why would the DMV block it?  That doesn't make any sense unless I'm not understanding.  Get the politics out of it and there wouldn't be a problem, let alone those being a district and two entire states.  Like you said, a major market, too.

 

Politics are just one aspect of it.  What politician wants to risk their political career for Dan Snyder?  More importantly, none of them want to provide public funding. 

 

For DC, remember RFK was owned by the city.  Not a lot of people want to navigate all of the debates and approval levels necessary, for Dan Snyder to get a sweetheart deal.  From a practical perspective, if the Federal Government leases the land to DC, and they in turn allow Snyder to operate there rent free, it means federal taxpayers are not getting value for the lease.   It would be seen as a taxpayer subsidy to Dan.  

 

Virginia is still waiting on the financial windfall having training camp in Richmond would provide.  But they'd probably let him build out by Dulles. 

 

MD has no appetite to give Snyder a prime location (Oxen Cove).  It'd require transferring land with the Feds, and running afoul of environmentalists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Thanks for the response. I guess where we differ can be summed up by your last line. I not only want to hear and see benevolence/character in the boardroom, I demand it. It needs to be a requirement and it is unacceptable to me, that people waste their time turning into ****heads in some faustian bargain to amass extreme amounts of wealth and power.

I don't accept that "that's what billionaires do". **** them for behaving in this way. And lack of ethics is always a problem in my book.

 

So you are saying that you'd invest your last 100 dollars on an investment that is going to lose you money because at least they paid for medical insurance for workers that work twice a week?

 

You wouldn't just find another investment that will make you money?

 

What would be the point? Losing money for charity?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

So you are saying that you'd invest your last 100 dollars on an investment that is going to lose you money because at least they paid for medical insurance for workers that work twice a week?

 

You wouldn't just find another investment that will make you money?

 

What would be the point? Losing money for charity?

 

Bezos wasnt down to his last $100, why are these false choices being presented like were talking about purity tests here?

 

Better off closing the thread now or moving to tailgate, theres more official statements saying Snyder wont sell to Bezos then rumors that he will.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

So you are saying that you'd invest your last 100 dollars on an investment that is going to lose you money because at least they paid for medical insurance for workers that work twice a week?

 

You wouldn't just find another investment that will make you money?

 

What would be the point? Losing money for charity?

 

No that's not an applicable example, because your introducing extreme levels of scarcity with the "last 100 dollars bit". Bezos isn't dealing with any kind of scarcity like that.

 

If I was already making way more money than I needed and I faced a decision of either make 35% profit off of company X from my overall portfoli, while getting rid of medical insurance for part-time workers, or make 25% profit and keep the insurance, I would choose the latter.

It's about at what point or threshold should your intent change from being all about making money, to bi-furcating that intent so it also includes making the world a better place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

First of all you don't get to set my standards or my responses to those who fail those standards, especially when you seem to have none yourself in this specific matter.

 

You used the word "demand".  To me, that implies a level of action.  

 

My standards around this team center on winning, **** at least being competitive.  Asking a billionaire to be guided by ethics is like expecting athletes to be role models for my kids.  Out of their operating scope. 

 

7 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Second, I haven't spent a single cent on the Redskins in the past 30 years and before that I was a kid who grew up rooting for them and didn't weigh such matters.

 

But do you watch games?  And you're obviously corresponding on the team's official message board, something that increases the value of that asset for them (albeit small, I know).  

 

Point was, it wasn't Dan's exceptional moral compass that attracted you to this team.  Considering his track record, it's kind of ironic to place him on any pedestal in an ethics conversation.  Do you think Dan is somehow more ethical than Bezos?  If so, is it because he's done more ethical things, or is it because he's never had the opportunity Bezos has?  

 

7 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Third, I have already said on this forum that while I love the team, the front office is a cancer and like a cancer needs to be treated with the chemotherapy of losing so badly that they can't help but have to face the consequences.

So yes, it has been a criteria of my fandom and I am enforcing it, because their lack of integrity is having a direct impact on my support, both emotional and financial.

 

Really didn't intend for it to come off as questioning your fanhood. Just throwing out a counter argument to all of the 'grass isn't greener' guys.  Our ceiling under this ownership has been 10 Ws and a wildcard win, in the most ideal of situations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Thanks for the response. I guess where we differ can be summed up by your last line. I not only want to hear and see benevolence/character in the boardroom, I demand it. It needs to be a requirement and it is unacceptable to me, that people waste their time turning into ****heads in some faustian bargain to amass extreme amounts of wealth and power.

I don't accept that "that's what billionaires do". **** them for behaving in this way. And lack of ethics is always a problem in my book.

Edited out. Not Redskins related

Edited by bowhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Bezos wasnt down to his last $100, why are these false choices being presented like were talking about purity tests here?

 

The discussion was about the board room and investors.

 

So Bezos is the lone investor in his empire and he did it without outside investment from anyone?

Edited by SkinsFTW
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The metro is falling apart right now, I'd totally get behind blocking public funding.  I'm at a point I feel that way period about professional sports, but specific to the redskins, Snyder doesn't deserve it and the money can go to better use.

 

 

I understand, jus not in same boat as you as a fan. I'm still in Alexandria, even if I stop following the team this directly impacts me.

 

I see where you're coming from.  I doubt it'll ever be in the District itself, at least not for the next stadium, but if there's no ridiculous tax incentives or similar crap that cities pulled trying to get Amazon HQ2, then it would only benefit the local area.

Plus if the Caps and Nats keep winning and the Redskins keep being god awful, Snyder will have to go by supply and demand and won't be able to leverage government into any public funding.  It'd be nice to see the prince as a pauper for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, megared said:

 

You used the word "demand".  To me, that implies a level of action.  

 

My standards around this team center on winning, **** at least being competitive.  Asking a billionaire to be guided by ethics is like expecting athletes to be role models for my kids.  Out of their operating scope. 

 

 

But do you watch games?  And you're obviously corresponding on the team's official message board, something that increases the value of that asset for them (albeit small, I know).  

 

Point was, it wasn't Dan's exceptional moral compass that attracted you to this team.  Considering his track record, it's kind of ironic to place him on any pedestal in an ethics conversation.  Do you think Dan is somehow more ethical than Bezos?  If so, is it because he's done more ethical things, or is it because he's never had the opportunity Bezos has?  

 

 

Really didn't intend for it to come off as questioning your fanhood. Just throwing out a counter argument to all of the 'grass isn't greener' guys.  Our ceiling under this ownership has been 10 Ws and a wildcard win, in the most ideal of situations.  

 

I feel you on the demand word choice. To clarify, that demand intent is limited to my level of influence and is not exclusive to the redskins. I have more influence in my company than I do with the redskins obviously.


Most forums cost more money than they make, so posting here doesn't benefit them and revenue for aired games are shared across all teams, so even switching my allegiance to a different team doesn't change that equation. Plus, I watch the game on DVR and fast-forward through the commercials, so not much given there either.

Again, I hate Dan and consider him a cancer. He is on no pedestal for me. I want better and I would prefer to have someone who is both capable and ethical.

 

10 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

I'm assuming that you are homeless and donate 85% of your income to a charitable organization. And therefore are entitled to tell someone else how much money they should make/keep.

 

What kind of nonsense is this?

So what, we have to be perfect in order to gain the ability to hold others accountable? That's a dumb ass way to look at life. Do you aspire to anything? Do you have any standards?

It doesn't take a saint or an angel to realize, that after a certain point making more money is not the absolute goal, the absolute goal is making the world better for yourself and others. I'd say that's a natural evolution of the golden rule. Treat other's how you'd like to be treated, which can also extend to protect and work for others, in the way that you'd like to be protected and worked for yourself.

How ****ing hard is this?

I mean come one, didn't y'all learn how to share in kindergarten?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.