toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

jerkz can't even make the pretense of reading evidence, even the Federalists couldn't fix that kind of fuck up. he's just a moron spewing rand, a bottomless pit of bias. fuck, pretty much every successful businessperson I've known reserves the best praise for the people who started more than one wildly successful business. They know it takes more than just hard work and how hard it is to repeat. the people who don't are either fools, or conmen selling bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

...    ...    ... Tell us, why are successful people successful, if it has nothing to do with their family wealth, or their education, or their upbringing? What else is there? God's destiny? Dotting the "i" in "Capitalism" with a little smiley-face?

It also begs the question, what "successful" people do you have experience with?

 

Well see, maybe that is why you are where you are.

To answer your question, there is hard work, drive and determination.  And it is certainly related to family wealth, education and upbringing.  Those households are generally run by successful people, so they teach their children how to be successful.  

Over the years, I have employed hundreds of people.  Like over 500.  I know the difference between a good, hardworking employee, and not.

And, I have experience with many successful people.   Most of them tell me that if they lost every penny and were dropped anywhere in the US, they could find their way back to where they were in a few years.  They have "it" and know what it takes.

Not surprised at all that you have no idea what it takes.

 

Then why did you say it had nothing to do with those? Is it your upbringing that makes you say retarded things?

As for me not knowing what it takes to be successful, all I can say is that among the many many things you have no clue about, is where I am in life..... and this is after I have told you enough basics to go on.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of this is covered well in the "Apprentiship of Duddy Kravitz".  Especially the moral issues involved with screwing the other guy so you can survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you rely on anecdotes rather than experience you get jzk.  Or that is what people tell me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasher said:

Carnegie made a lot of money.  More than I.  He gave it away.  Rockefeller owned 5% of the American economy.  I think his treasure survives. 

Rockefeller had a boatload of money, obviously.  As a percent of the GDP, 1.5% to 2% is the assumed range, which is quite a bit.  Estimated to be one of the two or three richest people to ever have lived.  

Rockefeller philanthropy was extensive.  The Rockefeller Foundation was his biggest foundation and the largest in the world until Gates came along.  As remarkable was his support for anti-slavery efforts and African American institutions and higher education including giving huge boosts to the University of Chicago, Spelman College, Rockefeller University and American University in the Philipines.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Bezos is worth 0.67% of the GDP, $131B of $19.39T.

Bezos' philanthropy is also highly regarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

When you rely on anecdotes rather than experience you get jzk.  Or that is what people tell me. 

"Rather than?"

Share this post


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

Bezos' philanthropy is also highly regarded.

I think his wife's divorce attorney will be enforcing some philanthropy on him to account for his philandering. Of course, he brought that on himself in the hiring process. He famously said, I wanted a woman who could get me out of a 3rd-world prison.

Share this post


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

I think his wife's divorce attorney will be enforcing some philanthropy on him to account for his philandering. Of course, he brought that on himself in the hiring process. He famously said, I wanted a woman who could get me out of a 3rd-world prison.

Goes with the public contract of marriage. You break that contract, there's consequences.....

 I tell that to everyone that I perform marriage vows for..... I'm pretty blunt. I don't go for the under the eye of god shit, I tell them that they are engaging in a legally binding contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Bezos' philanthropy is also highly regarded.

There is no way that Bezos could serve society as well through philanthropy as he does through his business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:
35 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Bezos' philanthropy is also highly regarded.

There is no way that Bezos could serve society as well through philanthropy as he does through his business.

Considering that his business success is what has (or would) enable his philanthropy, this is a singularly stupid thing to say, even for you.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Considering that his business success is what has (or would) enable his philanthropy, this is a singularly stupid thing to say, even for you.

-DSK

You are stupid.  Nothing is more clear than that.  Bezos should spend his time growing his business because that would serve society far more than any of his philanthropic effortd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some respect for those that actually have pulled themselves up by their boot-straps. Even in countries where that is actually resting on public education funded by others, clean water and logisitical infrastructure funded by others, etc. So those that went to public school, paid for their own education, and started their careers working for people they met solely because they were the best candidate? Yeah, I might listen a bit to them about what it takes to be a success. Those that had Daddy's money growing up buying them advantages and opportunities, Daddy's money helping them through college/university, and spend years working for Daddy &/or a contact they met because of Daddy's success? Not so much respect for their opinion of what it takes to succeed on their own. 

I've generally found that the former are strong advocates of democratic socialism and regulatory controls on runaway capitalism.The latter, I've found, tend to be more insecure about their position in life, knowing how they got there and all, and so advocate ways that keep others from "usurping" it from them. 

Share this post


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

I have some respect for those that actually have pulled themselves up by their boot-straps. Even in countries where that is actually resting on public education funded by others, clean water and logisitical infrastructure funded by others, etc. So those that went to public school, paid for their own education, and started their careers working for people they met solely because they were the best candidate? Yeah, I might listen a bit to them about what it takes to be a success. Those that had Daddy's money growing up buying them advantages and opportunities, Daddy's money helping them through college/university, and spend years working for Daddy &/or a contact they met because of Daddy's success? Not so much respect for their opinion of what it takes to succeed on their own. 

I've generally found that the former are strong advocates of democratic socialism and regulatory controls on runaway capitalism.The latter, I've found, tend to be more insecure about their position in life, knowing how they got there and all, and so advocate ways that keep others from "usurping" it from them. 

That is not a case for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jzk said:

Well see, maybe that is why you are where you are.

To answer your question, there is hard work, drive and determination.  And it is certainly related to family wealth, education and upbringing.  Those households are generally run by successful people, so they teach their children how to be successful.  

Over the years, I have employed hundreds of people.  Like over 500.  I know the difference between a good, hardworking employee, and not.

And, I have experience with many successful people.   Most of them tell me that if they lost every penny and were dropped anywhere in the US, they could find their way back to where they were in a few years.  They have "it" and know what it takes.

Not surprised at all that you have no idea what it takes.

and that attitude translates to all scales of financial success ...other than politicians exhibit A...the Clinton's wealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

and that attitude translates to all scales of financial success ...other than politicians exhibit A...the Clinton's wealth

Uh, both the Clintons started out poor.  And for the bolded part of jzk's post? As Mike Tyson said "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"  - it's really easy to state if you lose everything you can do it again - sure, get back after you have done it.  Talk is cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton's family was solidly middle class. Bill's was upper trailer trash. And that is an awesome Tyson quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jzk said:

You are stupid.  Nothing is more clear than that.  Bezos should spend his time growing his business because that would serve society far more than any of his philanthropic effortd.

As I see it, Bezos is now the richest person in the world.  That might be about the time that you look around and ask what can you do with an essentially infinite amount of money.  Asking, "What do I believe in?"  That's what Mary Gates challenged her son with, and the world is certainly better served by his subsequent actions than by an even larger Microsoft.  

Walmart grew beyond its useful size by driving down costs, damaging small businesses and emptying Main Streets across the country.  Will Amazon be remembered in the same way?

Share this post


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

As I see it, Bezos is now the richest person in the world.  That might be about the time that you look around and ask what can you do with an essentially infinite amount of money.  Asking, "What do I believe in?"  That's what Mary Gates challenged her son with, and the world is certainly better served by his subsequent actions than by an even larger Microsoft.  

Walmart grew beyond its useful size by driving down costs, damaging small businesses and emptying Main Streets across the country.  Will Amazon be remembered in the same way?

So if someone benefits society beyond what you think is " useful" to you, then their earned wealth is up for grabs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, jzk said:

So if someone benefits society beyond what you think is " useful" to you, then their earned wealth is up for grabs?

I hope you are getting nothing more than your base troll fee for this crap.  Even that is a waste of money for your handlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:
41 minutes ago, jzk said:

So if someone benefits society beyond what you think is " useful" to you, then their earned wealth is up for grabs?

I hope you are getting nothing more than your base troll fee for this crap.  Even that is a waste of money for your handlers.

Clearly the all-bean diet is not helping his output.

I've been trying to goad him into posting something funny but it may be a lost cause

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Clearly the all-bean diet is not helping his output.

I've been trying to goad him into posting something funny but it may be a lost cause

-DSK

Try under a different rock?

I thought this a pretty good punch line

On 2/10/2019 at 6:35 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

from Justice Stevens in Citizens United:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

Um... Or something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Clearly the all-bean diet is not helping his output.

I've been trying to goad him into posting something funny but it may be a lost cause

-DSK

Is it that you are jealous of how much Bezos and other "robber barons" have contributed to society compared to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

Is it that you are jealous of how much Bezos and other "robber barons" have contributed to society compared to you?

I'm quite fortunate in that I little reason to be jealous of anybody

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm quite fortunate in that I little reason to be jealous of anybody

-DSK

Yet you have much to complain about other people and some strange drive to control them.  Is it a sickness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 8:45 PM, BillDBastard said:

Wholly crap. Are you serious? Talk about derangement syndrome and bastardization.

Capitalism is two people coming to an agreement on what is a fair price for goods or services. In its purest form either party can decide not to go ahead with the transaction if they do not feel it is equitable. That is the essence of capitalism. Economics 101.

As Sam Donaldson recently pointed out, what we have now in America is not capitalism.

umm, no. that is not what capitalism is, if you actually care about the meanings of words.

What you described was free-trade, which could be barter, or using some means of currency. There may be the concept of "profit", but that's not necessary. It has nothing to do with the ownership and employment of excess capital, which is what Capital'ism, get it?, means.

Capitalism, as we've seen, doesn't really LIKE free-trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

LIKE free-trade. 

As a lawyer, I endorse this statement.  I like a very protected market.  It keeps the rates up.  Oh, I will sell you a load of...  Nevermind.  Talking out of school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jzk said:

Yet you have much to complain about other people and some strange drive to control them.  Is it a sickness?

In order to have the symphony of self interest, you must have feedback from the others, or it is not a symphony.  (same sound, working together, right) You seem to view this feedback as complaint and control of the other person instead of what it is, feedback.  JZK, this doesn't work for me.

Share this post


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

In order to have the symphony of self interest, you must have feedback from the others, or it is not a symphony.  (same sound, working together, right) You seem to view this feedback as complaint and control of the other person instead of what it is, feedback.  JZK, this doesn't work for me.

If I am in a transaction with another person, why do you feel the need to be involved in our symphony?   Leave us alone please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jzk said:

If I am in a transaction with another person, why do you feel the need to be involved in our symphony?   Leave us alone please.

Is this by the hour or did you pay for the entire night?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

If I am in a transaction with another person, why do you feel the need to be involved in our symphony?   Leave us alone please.

If indeed your symphony gets in the way of my symphony.  Remember, there are more than two players in a symphony and that is where the trouble begins.  2 people, 4 interactions, 3 people, 9 interactions, 4 people, 16 interactions.........you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Laker said:

If indeed your symphony gets in the way of my symphony.  Remember, there are more than two players in a symphony and that is where the trouble begins.  2 people, 4 interactions, 3 people, 9 interactions, 4 people, 16 interactions.........you get the idea.

Seldom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Laker said:

If indeed your symphony gets in the way of my symphony.  Remember, there are more than two players in a symphony and that is where the trouble begins.  2 people, 4 interactions, 3 people, 9 interactions, 4 people, 16 interactions.........you get the idea.

Do not join the symphony with us unless you are agreeable to all of its terms.  I would never try to force you to be in our symphony.  But if you are not in our symphony, please leave us alone and do not try to tell us how to have our symphony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jzk said:

Do not join the symphony with us unless you are agreeable to all of its terms.  I would never try to force you to be in our symphony.  But if you are not in our symphony, please leave us alone and do not try to tell us how to have our symphony.

But you can't leave me out of a symphony.  That is what it is all about.  A common working of the economy.  The self interest of all.  Two are a duet.  Three are a trio.  A symphony is big , otherwise it is just two people pissing in the wind.  It is the "symphony" of self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

But you can't leave me out of a symphony.  That is what it is all about.  A common working of the economy.  The self interest of all.  Two are a duet.  Three are a trio.  A symphony is big , otherwise it is just two people pissing in the wind.  It is the "symphony" of self-interest.

Yes I can.  You aren't in every orchestra.  I want to join this orchestra, but I have little experience.  So I want to offer to work for the orchestra for $3.00/hour sweeping the orchestra floor and playing with them and watching them play.  They said they would do it.  And they would teach me.  Why do I have to get your approval?   Once I learn from these masters, I will be able to command a very livable wage.  Why are you interfering with my dreams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Because you can't play and are just fiddling around?

 I realize that you would tell every poor unskilled person that they can never move forward in their life.  And that is why we can't have people like you controlling other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes I can.  You aren't in every orchestra.  I want to join this orchestra, but I have little experience.  So I want to offer to work for the orchestra for $3.00/hour sweeping the orchestra floor and playing with them and watching them play.  They said they would do it.  And they would teach me.  Why do I have to get your approval?   Once I learn from these masters, I will be able to command a very livable wage.  Why are you interfering with my dreams?

Maybe I just don't like you.  Perhaps you are an Irishman.  You have to deal with that when you are dealing with the symphony of self-interest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

Maybe I just don't like you.  Perhaps you are an Irishman.  You have to deal with that when you are dealing with the symphony of self-interest.  

If you don't like me, and you don't want me in your orchestra, for whatever stupid reason, no problem.  I would rather not be in your orchestra if you are a racist.  I will find another orchestra where everyone wants to be there and wants everyone else there.   And the group of us will figure out how we will run things.  Why are you trying to run our orchestra?  Leave us alone please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

If you don't like me, and you don't want me in your orchestra, for whatever stupid reason, no problem.  I would rather not be in your orchestra if you are a racist.  I will find another orchestra where everyone wants to be there and wants everyone else there.   And the group of us will figure out how we will run things.  Why are you trying to run our orchestra?  Leave us alone please.

No, I wont.  Another free market failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put to you a pretty standard example of the "leave alone" example of free market failure.  A native burial ground sits on some land owned by you to which they have no title.  You talk to your associate about putting up condos.  Do you have the right to be "left alone" and bring about profit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

52082369_10213558324567736_7097118480918

The righties are so afraid of this woman that I can't decide whether it is pathetic, terrific, or funny (or all of the above)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Let me put to you a pretty standard example of the "leave alone" example of free market failure.  A native burial ground sits on some land owned by you to which they have no title.  You talk to your associate about putting up condos.  Do you have the right to be "left alone" and bring about profit?

This exact scenario is going on in London, where somebody found the Globe Theater under a parking lot, in Egypt, where somebody just uncovered some mummies under a shopping mall, in Mexico where Aztec and Toltec ruins and burial grounds are being uncovered, in Chile, were Incan artifacts are being found.  

So you wouldn't be alone.  Today, no you do not have an absolute "right" to be "left alone", but likely have a path.  You are in for some serious conversations with the local tribe, the State Historic Preservation Office, archaeologists and perhaps some land trusts.  Probable result is some profit but not in pre-discovery amounts.  

But for you there are many questions, but probably the most important is "When did you know it and how did you discover it"?  Did the seller know and disclose it?

And most important "Who is this "associate" that suddenly popped up?"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laker said:

Let me put to you a pretty standard example of the "leave alone" example of free market failure.  A native burial ground sits on some land owned by you to which they have no title.  You talk to your associate about putting up condos.  Do you have the right to be "left alone" and bring about profit?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jzk said:

Yes.

Nope.  You may have the wish to be left alone, but with ownership also comes stewardship, and social responsibility.  Concepts you are not familiar with, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Laker said:

If indeed your symphony gets in the way of my symphony.  Remember, there are more than two players in a symphony and that is where the trouble begins.  2 people, 4 interactions, 3 people, 9 interactions, 4 people, 16 interactions.........you get the idea.

You might want to check your math - 2 people is 1 interaction.  3 people is 3 interactions and 4 people is 6 interactions.  Unless we are talking a double round robin then double the numbers. 

Share this post


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

You might want to check your math - 2 people is 1 interaction.  3 people is 3 interactions and 4 people is 6 interactions.  Unless we are talking a double round robin then double the numbers. 

Game theory. 2 people.  Yes,yes.  Yes, no. No,yes.  No,no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

straight up land theft from native americans is the freemarket, just ask jerkz. but somehow socialists are bad for "stealing" peoples land.

You are trying to steal my land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Laker said:

Game theory. 2 people.  Yes,yes.  Yes, no. No,yes.  No,no.

If I sell you my farm that you want to use for low income housing, and it is later discovered that my great grand parents and a bunch of their relatives are buried there, what to do?

Who wins?  The low income housing people that need shelter, or my distant relatives that have been dead 100 years?

Share this post


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

If I sell you my farm that you want to use for low income housing, and it is later discovered that my great grand parents and a bunch of their relatives are buried there, what to do?

Who wins?  The low income housing people that need shelter, or my distant relatives that have been dead 100 years?

It depends when the discovery is made, but in your case, as a living heir, you likely have the authority to permit relocation and re-internment of the remains.  Shouldn't be that hard on your psyche, since you didn't even know they were there and you wanted to sell the land.  

Another reason to support cremation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

It depends when the discovery is made, but in your case, as a living heir, you likely have the authority to permit relocation and re-internment of the remains.  Shouldn't be that hard on your psyche, since you didn't even know they were there and you wanted to sell the land.  

Another reason to support cremation.

If it is so important to me, then it should be on me to pay for that relocation and re-internment.  Otherwise, I should just move on.  If it turns out there is some ancient artifacts or something that society wants, then how about society purchase that property from the new owner?  It would seem like that owner owns it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

If it is so important to me, then it should be on me to pay for that relocation and re-internment.  Otherwise, I should just move on.  If it turns out there is some ancient artifacts or something that society wants, then how about society purchase that property from the new owner?  It would seem like that owner owns it now.

That societal purchase happens quite often.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jzk said:

If it is so important to me, then it should be on me to pay for that relocation and re-internment.  Otherwise, I should just move on.  If it turns out there is some ancient artifacts or something that society wants, then how about society purchase that property from the new owner?  It would seem like that owner owns it now.

A puzzler, isn't it? When you "own" something, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it! So why does everybody look askance at you and try to intervene when you kick your dog down the street? Why can't I store spent nuclear fuel, or medical waste, in my back yard? I can make a big profit on those things! My fuckin' neighbors should just mind their own goddam business!

Oh and if you could, please explain why are socialism and nuclear power incompatible? Enquiring minds still want to know.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jzk said:

If I sell you my farm that you want to use for low income housing, and it is later discovered that my great grand parents and a bunch of their relatives are buried there, what to do?

Who wins?  The low income housing people that need shelter, or my distant relatives that have been dead 100 years?

You really ask a lot of stupid questions - how is it that you didn't know about the graves? The new owner can most likely sue you for the failure to disclose and recover the associated costs. The new owner is obligated to either move said graves to a cemetery or section the area off as a grave site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

You really ask a lot of stupid questions - how is it that you didn't know about the graves? The new owner can most likely sue you for the failure to disclose and recover the associated costs. The new owner is obligated to either move said graves to a cemetery or section the area off as a grave site.

Man you are a dumbass.  I only have to disclose what I know about.  All of these examples assume the burial sites are discovered post sale.  Try to keep up.

Share this post


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

Man you are a dumbass.  I only have to disclose what I know about.  All of these examples assume the burial sites are discovered post sale.  Try to keep up.

Funny - I have actual experience dealing with exactly that situation.  Ignorance (sadly for you) is a very poor excuse. Your example of a family owned tract would not hold water.  Care to try again? As to what the development is it seems you have an issue with low income - makes zip difference if that or global corporate HQ.  Of course up stream you also mix in ancient artifacts thus the terrific apples and oranges obfuscation.

Nothing beats being insulted by a moran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Funny - I have actual experience dealing with exactly that situation.  Ignorance (sadly for you) is a very poor excuse. Your example of a family owned tract would not hold water.  Care to try again? As to what the development is it seems you have an issue with low income - makes zip difference if that or global corporate HQ.  Of course up stream you also mix in ancient artifacts thus the terrific apples and oranges obfuscation.

Nothing beats being insulted by a moran.

Hey dipshit.  We are making hypothetical scenarios to discuss how certain political and economic philosophies would handle certain situations.  We are not talking about the state of the law as it currently exists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jzk said:

Hey dipshit.  We are making hypothetical scenarios to discuss how certain political and economic philosophies would handle certain situations.  We are not talking about the state of the law as it currently exists.  

Cool - as long as we are just making shit up you are still an ignorant numbnutz.  Oh wait, I am not making this up.  Better yet - Communism works great in a hypothetical economy.  Even better yet - it isn't necessary to have any skills except bullshitting and conning to become POTUS.  Oh wait, that wasn't hypothetical. Never mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Flashing the Victory sign ? or free governemnt green cheese

Will this turn out to be yet another fake photo the right uses to try and destroy a freshman Congresswoman they fear?

Share this post


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

Will this turn out to be yet another fake photo the right uses to try and destroy a freshman Congresswoman they fear?

You mean like 2 years of fake Russian collusion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You mean like 2 years of fake Russian collusion ?

I ask you the same question I ask Dog - When did Mr. Mueller issue his final report?

Until he does so, that is simply nothing more than your hope.

Share this post


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

I ask you the same question I ask Dog - When did Mr. Mueller issue his final report?

Until he does so, that is simply nothing more than your hope.

You and your shameful lot are those counting on "hope"....regardless of party....one does not make serious charges against the POTUS...with the facts [/b] first[/b]...or anyone for that matter...disgraceful and shameful tactic by the libgressives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You and your shameful lot are those counting on "hope"....regardless of party....one does not make serious charges against the POTUS...with the facts [/b] first[/b]...or anyone for that matter...disgraceful and shameful tactic by the libgressives...

Thank you for your ongoing contribution of incoherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She sure scares the shit out of old snowflakes. Has there ever been a first term Representative who terrified people like she does? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You mean like 2 years of fake Russian collusion ?

Yeah, the fake-news Russian bullshit that has put -how- many of President Trump's former close associates in jail?

Nothingburger, peeps go to jail all the time.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You and your shameful lot are those counting on "hope"....regardless of party....one does not make serious charges against the POTUS...with the facts [/b] first[/b]...or anyone for that matter...disgraceful and shameful tactic by the libgressives...

I don't recall your concern over such allegations when Obama was the President.  

Face it, politics has gotten nastier since 1994.  I have no doubt, you and your elk will be as nasty, or worse, to the next D President.

And, you'll convince yourself it is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I don't recall your concern over such allegations when Obama was the President.  

Face it, politics has gotten nastier since 1994.  I have no doubt, you and your elk will be as nasty, or worse, to the next D President.

And, you'll convince yourself it is justified.

I don’t recall posting in PA when Obama was president 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I don’t recall posting in PA when Obama was president 

fair enough.  Based on your partisan posting history, I doubt you possess the objectivity to have refrained from joining in with those who did.

Funny how you skipped right by my other statement.  Perhaps you know it is a legitimate prediction.

Share this post


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

I ask you the same question I ask Dog - When did Mr. Mueller issue his final report?

Until he does so, that is simply nothing more than your hope.

Odds are there is no report..... or if there is, not one for public consumption.

SP Mueller is under no obligation to issue a report. Further, if he chooses to issue a report, the standard or requirement is that it will be for the AG's eye only. Was reading about this all the other day. Some sort of DOJ rules or guidelines for Special Prosecutors. Essentially it is indict based on the evidence collected or do not indict and say little to nothing as if you found evidence to indict, you would have. The third option is to report findings to the AG if the SP feels it necessary, but is under no obligation to do so. The third option, from what I understand, is more reserved for having uncovered some other potentially criminal activity that was well beyond the scope of the investigation that SP was charged to undertake. As a for instance, and do not get your panties in a collective twist here, say Mueller uncovered definitive evidence through his pursuit of Manafort and Stone that there was no collusion on behalf of Trump or his election to the presidency. BUT they did find that Hilary Clinton was in collusion with foreign operatives to derail Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Since it is well outside the scope of his charge, Mueller would report that to the AG for consideration.

At this point, you probably will not see nor hear a damn thing. It will simply be reported that the investigation has concluded and SP Mueller has close out the case. I think the left used to call such things...…"A Nothing Burger."

Share this post


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

Odds are there is no report..... or if there is, not one for public consumption.

SP Mueller is under no obligation to issue a report. Further, if he chooses to issue a report, the standard or requirement is that it will be for the AG's eye only. Was reading about this all the other day. Some sort of DOJ rules or guidelines for Special Prosecutors. Essentially it is indict based on the evidence collected or do not indict and say little to nothing as if you found evidence to indict, you would have. The third option is to report findings to the AG if the SP feels it necessary, but is under no obligation to do so. The third option, from what I understand, is more reserved for having uncovered some other potentially criminal activity that was well beyond the scope of the investigation that SP was charged to undertake. As a for instance, and do not get your panties in a collective twist here, say Mueller uncovered definitive evidence through his pursuit of Manafort and Stone that there was no collusion on behalf of Trump or his election to the presidency. BUT they did find that Hilary Clinton was in collusion with foreign operatives to derail Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Since it is well outside the scope of his charge, Mueller would report that to the AG for consideration.

At this point, you probably will not see nor hear a damn thing. It will simply be reported that the investigation has concluded and SP Mueller has close out the case. I think the left used to call such things...…"A Nothing Burger."

I have no doubt we will see little of the actual report.  But, that was not my point.

My point, since it zoomed over your head, is to point out the "pronouncements" made by Dog and SailBlue are premature and nothing more than their opinions.  They have no definitive proof, but state their beliefs as if they have all the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people like to say people are terrified of her, many people are saying it. It must be true.

Hearing this shit makes me think of a three year old running around with his shiny new He Man and the Masters of the Universe sword. We’re all supposed to be shaking in our boots, that’s what the three year old wants us to do. It makes him feel better to believe it’s true. In reality, it’s just cute and laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chum said:

Many people like to say people are terrified of her, many people are saying it. It must be true.

Hearing this shit makes me think of a three year old running around with his shiny new He Man and the Masters of the Universe sword. We’re all supposed to be shaking in our boots, that’s what the three year old wants us to do. It makes him feel better to believe it’s true. In reality, it’s just cute and laughable.

The issue is that the majority of what she is putting forth is good solid governance, but it does require a shift in culture and particularly in what is important to the individual.  That is why I reject your "three year old" analogy.  People fear her because what she is putting forth has validity, but will affect the how and why of a lot of people.  No, it is not cute and laughable, it is very much a danger to the pre-conceived notions of a lot of people holding power at the moment.  However, they will eventually move into old folks homes and there will be a change in culture that will include many of AOC's concepts.  The culture 10 years down the road will not be the present culture.  Just look at the effect of the smartphone.  The generation of energy will become, for many reasons, cheaper with wind and solar than present fossil fuels.  This is an example of change of culture and many people are afraid of changes in culture.

Share this post


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

The issue is that the majority of what she is putting forth is good solid governance, but it does require a shift in culture and particularly in what is important to the individual.  That is why I reject your "three year old" analogy.  People fear her because what she is putting forth has validity, but will affect the how and why of a lot of people.  No, it is not cute and laughable, it is very much a danger to the pre-conceived notions of a lot of people holding power at the moment.  However, they will eventually move into old folks homes and there will be a change in culture that will include many of AOC's concepts.  The culture 10 years down the road will not be the present culture.  Just look at the effect of the smartphone.  The generation of energy will become, for many reasons, cheaper with wind and solar than present fossil fuels.  This is an example of change of culture and many people are afraid of changes in culture.

microparsing AOC statements for mocking is a way for rightwingers to bond together while comfortably pretending they believe in facts, honesty and knowledge. It's a safe way for them to go on ignoring the gaping cavern of ignorance and emotion that drives their radicalism; a way to reject the present for a mythic land. To them "banning" internal combustion engines is an absurd idea born of the ignorance of youth; to Volkswagen its a business plan http://www.thedrive.com/news/25299/volkswagen-says-its-last-internal-combustion-engine-will-debut-in-2026 you can go on with their criticism of her other "stupid" ideas. "Free" college (worked in the US for a century), "free" healthcare (works, for less money, in most of the OECD nations). it's all about them bonding together as "normal intelligent people", just covering for their radical ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VW is banning internal combustion engines in their business plan? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chum said:

VW is banning internal combustion engines in their business plan? 

He missed this part 

Even though VW won't continue to develop new combustion engines past the next decade, that doesn't mean gas-powered vehicles will disappear altogether. Jost says fossil-fueled cars may still be around past 2050 particularly in less-developed corners of the world with "insufficient charging infrastructure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

The issue is that the majority of what she is putting forth is good solid governance, but it does require a shift in culture and particularly in what is important to the individual.  That is why I reject your "three year old" analogy.  People fear her because what she is putting forth has validity, but will affect the how and why of a lot of people.  No, it is not cute and laughable, it is very much a danger to the pre-conceived notions of a lot of people holding power at the moment.  However, they will eventually move into old folks homes and there will be a change in culture that will include many of AOC's concepts.  The culture 10 years down the road will not be the present culture.  Just look at the effect of the smartphone.  The generation of energy will become, for many reasons, cheaper with wind and solar than present fossil fuels.  This is an example of change of culture and many people are afraid of changes in culture.

Why would anyone be more afraid of her than Bernie Sanders?

Why do you need to impute fear to everyone when AOC was the one pointing out her own fear?

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

The fact is that we have had plenty of climate change legislation driven by that fear.  What can the US do to reduce those emissions?  Perhaps reduce our consumption of all those chinese goods.  Both the US and Europe have been reducing their overall emissions or holding steady. 

chart3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Jost says fossil-fueled cars may still be around past 2050 particularly in less-developed corners of the world with "insufficient charging infrastructure” like the USA after the GND totally destroyed their energy production capability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites