transigence

At least props for Stereo MC’s Connected.

Also, “the top 1%” doesn’t do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don’t want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn’t magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.

Right, that’s the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
If people can’t “own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does),” then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people’s aforementioned freedoms.
Also, “kulaks” were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.

That’s how many is needed for it to stand up and move around.

Can prospective developers use engines like Id Tech 3 or Unreal 2 commercially without paying?

He won’t be showing up to any more parties, either.

He would be so assassinated, so quickly. The IRS does not fuck around. Neither does the Department of Education.

A “capitalist,” according to socialists, esp. Marxists, is someone who engages in anticompetitive behavior, insider trading, protection racketeering, bribery, and all manner of dubious and criminal behavior.
Someone who just believes that people should be able to trade freely, associate freely, and keep the vast majority of what they have earned or traded for fairly are routinely called capitalists by socialists and communists to shame them for being successful.

A “capitalist” is just a socialist’s boogeyman.

Sure, that’s fair enough. That’s fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly “because it wasn’t correct” isn’t an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.

It was actually saying that “theists” think that scientists can’t appreciate beauty, whether that was intentional or not.

What world are you living in? All but one or two televised media outlets bend over backwards with big money to run cover for the left. Are you seriously suggesting that CNN, MSNBC, and ABC disadvantage the Democrats?

No, when it comes to journalism specifically, it’s also when one or more sides are absolutely batshit insane. Actually, even especially when one or more sides is absolutely batshit insane.

If there is someone who says it’s dry when it’s obviously raining, that is absolutely more newsworthy than the mere fact that it’s raining.
It would be fairness-biased to pretend like it could possibly be true that it’s not raining, but yes, it is absolutely journalism to present all available sides, every single time. It’s not the journalist’s job to tell you which one is right — it’s their job to show you what is out there.
What you’re describing is propaganda or advocacy.

What you’re describing isn’t “theists,” but fundamentalists. Plenty of theists don’t talk to the dead, know that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and modern astronomy would look quite different were it not for the catholic church.

Why is the administration telling news execs what to report on, and how to frame it?

Owning land with a livable structure on it, and keeping it to the standards of living in is a job.