Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, The Joker said:

There are a lot of qualifiers in the story. Statements like "if the facts are as alleged" and "on the other hand"... seems like there were two PACs created and the flow of money between them is the issue. So far the reporting seems fair, at least on FOX... some of the other sites reporting (Washington Examiner for example) are a bit more breathless. It's a complaint made by a Conservative group that is described by the Ocasio team as just trying to score political points.

I think the majors are doing due diligence and figuring more out about the story. FOX was obviously given the scoop by the writers of the complaint. They "won" the initial news cycle, but it's not clear yet if this is Alex Jones worthy or Shield & Brooks worthy. 

Anyone can file a complaint with the FEC, but not everyone can get their complaint such gratifying air time. These guys have good PR chops... kudos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

There are a lot of qualifiers in the story. Statements like "if the facts are as alleged" and "on the other hand"... seems like there were two PACs created and the flow of money between them is the issue. So far the reporting seems fair, at least on FOX... some of the other sites reporting (Washington Examiner for example) are a bit more breathless. It's a complaint made by a Conservative group that is described by the Ocasio team as just trying to score political points.

I think the majors are doing due diligence and figuring more out about the story. FOX was obviously given the scoop by the writers of the complaint. They "won" the initial news cycle, but it's not clear yet if this is Alex Jones worthy or Shield & Brooks worthy. 

Anyone can file a complaint with the FEC, but not everyone can get their complaint such gratifying air time. These guys have good PR chops... kudos.

Is there anything wrong with that?

I once watched about 10 minutes of The Apprentice before moving to another channel.  Should I expect a subpoena any time soon?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

There are a lot of qualifiers in the story. Statements like "if the facts are as alleged" and "on the other hand"... seems like there were two PACs created and the flow of money between them is the issue. So far the reporting seems fair, at least on FOX... some of the other sites reporting (Washington Examiner for example) are a bit more breathless. It's a complaint made by a Conservative group that is described by the Ocasio team as just trying to score political points.

I think the majors are doing due diligence and figuring more out about the story. FOX was obviously given the scoop by the writers of the complaint. They "won" the initial news cycle, but it's not clear yet if this is Alex Jones worthy or Shield & Brooks worthy. 

Anyone can file a complaint with the FEC, but not everyone can get their complaint such gratifying air time. These guys have good PR chops... kudos.

Well this is the standard coverage when it involves a Democrat.   Fox and fringe sites break it and when the pressure  of their bias becomes unbearable, only then does the rest of the media join in.  When it involves a republican the majors are out instantly with the story. 

Think about the excitement when the fake buzzfeed story broke.  The coverage was so instant and broad that the Mueller team had to chime in with the fact that it was a false story.  

Reporters have been fired in their zest to break bad news against people on the right.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Well this is the standard coverage when it involves a Democrat.   Fox and fringe sites break it and when the pressure  of their bias becomes unbearable, only then does the rest of the media join in.  When it involves a republican the majors are out instantly with the story. 

Think about the excitement when the fake buzzfeed story broke.  The coverage was so instant and broad that the Mueller team had to chime in with the fact that it was a false story.  

Reporters have been fired in their zest to break bad news against people on the right.  

Did you recently get fitted for a new hat?

tinfoil-hat-and-tinfoil-cat.jpg

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

Well this is the standard coverage when it involves a Democrat.   Fox and fringe sites break it and when the pressure  of their bias becomes unbearable, only then does the rest of the media join in.  When it involves a republican the majors are out instantly with the story. 

Think about the excitement when the fake buzzfeed story broke.  The coverage was so instant and broad that the Mueller team had to chime in with the fact that it was a false story.  

Reporters have been fired in their zest to break bad news against people on the right.  

You poor poor snowflake. Everyone is mean to you!

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

You poor poor snowflake. Everyone is mean to you!

Not upset at all, it is how things work when the majority of the press is solidly left.   I accept and expect this type of double standard, human nature being what it is.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

Media Bias: Ask journalists, and they'll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be "fair." They're "centrists." Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with "fake news." Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.

 

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

Not upset at all, it is how things work when the majority of the press is solidly left.   I accept and expect this type of double standard, human nature being what it is.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

Media Bias: Ask journalists, and they'll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be "fair." They're "centrists." Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with "fake news." Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.

 

As evidence of liberal bias, you cite an editorial from a conservative site.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American newspaper and website covering the stock market, international business, finance and economics. Founded in 1984 by William O'Neil as a print news publication, it is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[1] Holding a conservative political stance, IBD provides news and analysis on stocks, mutual funds, ETFs, commodities, and other financial instruments aimed at individual investors and financial professionals.[2]

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Term Limits! said:

 

Looks trim enough for me.

image.png

image.png

A dancer's legs... Watch out for them. They can kick down doors like cardboard boxes..... DAMHIKT..... Too bad about that run in her stockings though.

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

As evidence of liberal bias, you cite an editorial from a conservative site.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American newspaper and website covering the stock market, international business, finance and economics. Founded in 1984 by William O'Neil as a print news publication, it is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[1] Holding a conservative political stance, IBD provides news and analysis on stocks, mutual funds, ETFs, commodities, and other financial instruments aimed at individual investors and financial professionals.[2]

If you can’t refute the facts attack the messenger.  If you read the link The survey was not conducted by the source you are having issues with 

One other thing the researchers found was that the surveyed journalists overwhelmingly described themselves as liberal. Of those surveyed, 17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

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

If you can’t refute the facts attack the messenger. 

You just did the same. Exact. Thing.

1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Not upset at all, it is how things work when the majority of the press is solidly left.   I accept and expect this type of double standard, human nature being what it is.

You’re suffering from LDS, bigly. (And hypocrisy)

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

If you can’t refute the facts attack the messenger.  If you read the link The survey was not conducted by the source you are having issues with 

One other thing the researchers found was that the surveyed journalists overwhelmingly described themselves as liberal. Of those surveyed, 17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

I went to the actual paper.  Here is the Abstract - 

Abstract

We survey 462 financial journalists and conduct 18 follow-up interviews to provide new insights into the inputs, incentives, and beliefs that shape their reporting. Our findings can be summarized in four themes. First, financial journalists rely heavily on private communication with company management when developing articles, but they often face backlash from management in response to unfavorable articles. Second, sell-side analysts are an important source of information for financial journalists, and journalists value experienced analysts over prominent or award-winning analysts. Third, journalists believe monitoring companies to hold them accountable is one of financial journalism’s most important objectives, and they believe negative articles are more impactful than other articles they write. Fourth, financial journalists have strong incentives to develop high-quality articles that contain exclusive content; nevertheless, they have a taste for controversial topics. We examine a wide range of other topics relevant to the literature on the business press, and our results provide multiple avenues for future research in this area.

Linky

Looking forward to seeing what the rest of the paper says.  Sounds like they recognize the expectation of objectivity and strive to meet that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Joker Your complaint of perceived media bias making the reputable news sources cover stories about Democrats differently than stories about Republicans is “attacking the source” of reputable news.

Sorry, but coverage of this story is going to differ from coverage of Trump & his henchmen because they are being found guilty at an astonishing rate, a plethora of guilty pleas, convictions and jail terms unheard of in a modern American administration.

No amount of “complaints” to the FEC by (essentially) right wing PR firms will change the fact that your GOP leaders have been acting in concert with criminals.

But please, carry on with your scheduled whataboutism.

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

@The Joker Your complaint of perceived media bias making the reputable news sources cover stories about Democrats differently than stories about Republicans is “attacking the source” of reputable news.

Sorry, but coverage of this story is going to differ from coverage of Trump & his henchmen because they are being found guilty at an astonishing rate, a plethora of guilty pleas, convictions and jail terms unheard of in a modern American administration.

No amount of “complaints” to the FEC by (essentially) right wing PR firms will change the fact that your GOP leaders have been acting in concert with criminals.

But please, carry on with your scheduled whataboutism.

I also backed my point up with a survey.  As of now there are no sources on this story other than FOX, that is the basis of my point.  Hard to attack a messenger when they haven't posted a message yet.  The story has been out for three days, I expect we will see some limited coverage later in the week.  

As to the rest of your rant  I'll use your own words Poor little snowflake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

 

No amount of investigations by left wing House committees will change the fact that Democrat party leaders were acting in concert with corrupt FBI leadership, foreign intelligence agents and the Russian government.

 

But please, carry on with your scheduled whataboutism.

FIFY

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

AOCC1!.jpg

Nope, in the primary she got 16898 to 12880 for her opponent.  Once she got the D nomination it was pretty much over.

Census population for the 14th district is just under 700K and she got 110K votes in the general election.

I'm not sure how that would translate to wins in a statewide senate race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirley we have never heard anyone commenting on the vote totals for AOC dismissing the fact that President Trump received a few million fewer votes than Hillary did.

Of course not.  Nope.  They wouldn't do that.

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

Shirley we have never heard anyone commenting on the vote totals for AOC dismissing the fact that President Trump received a few million fewer votes than Hillary did.

Of course not.  Nope.  They wouldn't do that.

How is that relevant?  

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

First off it is not AOC's district. Secondly the amount of economic stimuli would have had a huge effect on the 15th and easily brought wheelbarrows of cash to the 14th. Again, not a dime of money was "being given" to Amazon. They would have spent like 27 billion or more in the area and in exchange gotten 2.8 billion in tax relief over the course of the deal in return. Pretty much pennies on the dollar.

The rest of your rant is just that.

The first rule of unintended consequences:  What you get is never what you expected.

There are many, many offshoots to development on the scale of Amazon that come with costs to the local jurisdiction.  Transportation, housing, utilities and so on.  But the biggest one is the on-going cost to the residents in the area where the inevitably rising property values raise their property taxes, their rents, their cost of food and the decade long construction disruptions. 

While Seattle may be better for Amazon, it is in some ways quite certainly worse.  And it is certainly forever changed.  

Amazon NY might be a boon to NYC.  Just as likely, NYC would be more of a boon to Amazon.  It is the company that may be being shortsighted.  For 10% of their development budget, they are turning their nose up at a prominent position in the leading city of the nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16,000 votes? Oh really.

image.png.8fd922da3b08b0821830d0855688feb0.png

Y'all might be talking about the primary. That'd be the Democratic primary because the Republicans didn't hold a primary so Pappas didn't get any votes in any primary. Instead he 'won' the Queens Country Republican Club nomination. Even then, he was disavowed by Republicans because he's a domestic abuser.

Let that sink in.

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

How is that relevant?  

Just finding humor in folks dismissively commenting on vote counts, after being told that such things are beside the point.  It is not quite apples to oranges, as the only requirement for election is getting the right votes.  In the Presidential, that would be Electors.  In the case of AOC's district, the most votes is the key.

Anyway, just finding the inconsistency, however small and irrelevant you may find it, to be funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the current residents of LIC are good with no Amazon. They would have been displaced either by bulldozers or ever-higher taxes, and wouldn't have gotten those jobs in any case. 

All that national PR cost her a mere two cents, and drove a stake in the hearts of big wheels everywhere.

I have commented many times we needed some new and ballsy leadership. Not sure Pelosi will try to rein her in, or even wants to.

"When the student is ready the teacher will appear." Thanks in large part to Rump's idiocy, we may be there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

@The Joker Your complaint of perceived media bias making the reputable news sources cover stories about Democrats differently than stories about Republicans is “attacking the source” of reputable news.

Sorry, but coverage of this story is going to differ from coverage of Trump & his henchmen because they are being found guilty at an astonishing rate, a plethora of guilty pleas, convictions and jail terms unheard of in a modern American administration.

No amount of “complaints” to the FEC by (essentially) right wing PR firms will change the fact that your GOP leaders have been acting in concert with criminals.

But please, carry on with your scheduled whataboutism.

Still no coverage on her campaign financing complaint from ABC NBC CBS NYT WAPO  Just standard waiting for the facts.  Unlike anything to do with Trump or anything GOP

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Joker said:

Still no coverage on her campaign financing complaint from ABC NBC CBS NYT WAPO  Just standard waiting for the facts.  Unlike anything to do with Trump or anything GOP

Sorry your PR release isn’t getting the airtime you’d hoped for. Terrible when FakeNews just doesn’t stir the hearts of men.

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

Sorry your PR release isn’t getting the airtime you’d hoped for. Terrible when FakeNews just doesn’t stir the hearts of men.

What’s fake about it?

  A complaint was filed that’s all it takes if There is an R after your name. 

When it comes to Democrats The bias becomes quite clear.  Cover up for them  , keep the story from the people, until it is impossible to not report.  

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

Sorry your PR release isn’t getting the airtime you’d hoped for. Terrible when FakeNews just doesn’t stir the hearts of men.

It's always so sad when the accusation isn't sufficient to establish guilt.

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

It's always so sad when the accusation isn't sufficient to establish guilt.

When it comes to the liberal/progressive side of the spectrum that standard only applies to their own. 

I'm not even saying she or her campaign did anything wrong, but the story has enough concerns that it should be reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that "strategic consulting" was a mischaracterization of a wide range of activities that should have been reported individually.

Joker, you look like just the sort of fiscally responsible character that the Fiscal Responsibility thread is looking for. I've attached a handy link to take you straight there. It's even Dog approved although he doesn't seem to hang around there anymore. Why is that?

 

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

Two conservative 'watchdogs' complaining about a democrat is not a story tho

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Two conservative 'watchdogs' complaining about a democrat is not a story tho

 

Highly reliable source.  Here are some interesting bits about the Daily Mail from wikipedia:

The Daily Mail has been widely criticised for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,[12][13][14][15][16] and for copyright violations.[17]

 

(The publisher)Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[39][40] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[41] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[42][page needed]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[43] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[44] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[45]

 

In August 2016, the Daily Mail began a partnership with The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party.[57][58] This includes publishing articles in the MailOnline produced by The People's Daily. The agreement has been suggested to give the paper an edge in publishing news stories sourced out of China, but also led to questions of censorshipregarding politically sensitive topics.[59] In November 2016, Lego ended a series of promotions in the paper which had run for years following campaigning from a group called 'Stop Funding Hate', who were unhappy with the Mail's coverage of migrant issues and the EU referendum.[60]

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Two conservative 'watchdogs' complaining about a democrat is not a story tho

 

 

4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Highly reiable sourece.  Here are some interesting bits about the Daily Mail from wikipedia:

The Daily Mail has been widely criticised for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,[12][13][14][15][16] and for copyright violations.[17]

 

(The publisher)Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[39][40] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[41] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[42][page needed]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[43] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[44] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[45]

 

In August 2016, the Daily Mail began a partnership with The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party.[57][58] This includes publishing articles in the MailOnline produced by The People's Daily. The agreement has been suggested to give the paper an edge in publishing news stories sourced out of China, but also led to questions of censorshipregarding politically sensitive topics.[59] In November 2016, Lego ended a series of promotions in the paper which had run for years following campaigning from a group called 'Stop Funding Hate', who were unhappy with the Mail's coverage of migrant issues and the EU referendum.[60]

Another messenger attack.

 Only progressive sources can be believed.  

Like Buzzfeed 

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

 

Another messenger attack.

 Only progressive sources can be believed.  

Like Buzzfeed 

Nope, a substantive attack.  Two highly partisan conservative watchdogs complained to the FEC with facts that are super weak.  The complaints will be dismissed.  I'm guessing MSNBC will run a story about it when that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So messenger attacks are acceptable, but only if the left is doing it.

Go figure..

And again, someone who missed college and has no concept of the difference between substantive and nonsubstantive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/22/2019 at 10:03 AM, Dog said:

Why, what's odd about that?  I'm an amazon prime member, and I buy from them quite a bit.  Not just household stuff, either.  Nearly 20% of what I spent on materials and supplies in my business, last year, was stuff i bought from amazon.  That puts them well behind my local lumberyard, but ahead of any local hardware store, Lowe's, or Home Depot. 

But I absolutely did not support this deal, it was ridiculous. 

 

On 3/5/2019 at 7:41 AM, BillDBastard said:

First off it is not AOC's district. Secondly the amount of economic stimuli would have had a huge effect on the 15th and easily brought wheelbarrows of cash to the 14th. Again, not a dime of money was "being given" to Amazon. They would have spent like 27 billion or more in the area and in exchange gotten 2.8 billion in tax relief over the course of the deal in return. Pretty much pennies on the dollar.

You're wrong about none of it being subsidies, it was a mix of breaks & direct subsidies.

But that's beside the point.  The point is  -  why does this huge, highly profitable business need or deserve a better deal than everyone/anyone else gets?

 

Offer me the same terms.  Offer Maggie or Jay or Ali or Kilian or any other small business owner I know, the same terms.  Seriously.  For every new hire (or for every 108 thousand a year we add in payroll costs), give us 11 thousand in subsidies and tax breaks.   

THEN, we might get behind it.  'Till then, fuck off.  Stop playing favorites, especially to a company that doesn't need it, in exchange for something we don't need. 

 

NOBODY here needs, or wants, 25k new arrivals clogging up the subway even worse than it already is.  We & our people have enough trouble getting to work on time as it is, for fuck's sake.  

Actually, if you wanted to stimulate this town's economy, right now?  Fix the fucking subway.  Cuomo's been starving the MTA for years, and it shows. 

18 years ago, when I moved to this apt, I could get to midtown in 20 minutes; I'd budget half an hour, just to be safe...  Nowadays?  Takes 45 minutes, on a average day, and it's much less reliable than it was; I give it an hour & 1/4, to be safe.  The amount of "just in case" extra slack, is as much as the entire trip used to be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

 

Why, what's odd about that?  I'm an amazon prime member, and I buy from them quite a bit.  Not just household stuff, either.  Nearly 20% of what I spent on materials and supplies in my business, last year, was stuff i bought from amazon.  That puts them well behind my local lumberyard, but ahead of any local hardware store, Lowe's, or Home Depot. 

But I absolutely did not support this deal, it was ridiculous. 

 

You're wrong about none of it being subsidies, it was a mix of breaks & direct subsidies.

But that's beside the point.  The point is  -  why does this huge, highly profitable business need or deserve a better deal than everyone/anyone else gets?

 

Offer me the same terms.  Offer Maggie or Jay or Ali or Kilian or any other small business owner I know, the same terms.  Seriously.  For every new hire (or for every 108 thousand a year we add in payroll costs), give us 11 thousand in subsidies and tax breaks.   

THEN, we might get behind it.  'Till then, fuck off.  Stop playing favorites, especially to a company that doesn't need it, in exchange for something we don't need. 

 

NOBODY here needs, or wants, 25k new arrivals clogging up the subway even worse than it already is.  We & our people have enough trouble getting to work on time as it is, for fuck's sake.  

Actually, if you wanted to stimulate this town's economy, right now?  Fix the fucking subway.  Cuomo's been starving the MTA for years, and it shows. 

18 years ago, when I moved to this apt, I could get to midtown in 20 minutes; I'd budget half an hour, just to be safe...  Nowadays?  Takes 45 minutes, on a average day, and it's much less reliable than it was; I give it an hour & 1/4, to be safe.  The amount of "just in case" extra slack, is as much as the entire trip used to be.

Amazon is, unfortunately, controlling about 50% of all retail purchases, directly or by influencing and/or managing the market.  It is NOT a healthy situation.  

Walmart destroyed tens of thousands of small town Main Street mom & pops and now Amazon is controlling wholesalers and urban retailers. I refuse to walk into a Walmart and I won't let my purchasers order from Amazon.  Fuck 'em.

I know, I know, "Get Off My Lawn".  But actually Amazon came and sat, quite literally, on my sidewalk and devoured my neighborhood.  The unintended consequences of "convenience" is not to be ignored.  

And they sure as hell don't need any subsidies.  

Hey, NYC...fix the subways.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 6:29 PM, frenchie said:

Actually, if you wanted to stimulate this town's economy, right now?  Fix the fucking subway.  Cuomo's been starving the MTA for years, and it shows. 

18 years ago, when I moved to this apt, I could get to midtown in 20 minutes; I'd budget half an hour, just to be safe...  Nowadays?  Takes 45 minutes, on a average day, and it's much less reliable than it was; I give it an hour & 1/4, to be safe.  The amount of "just in case" extra slack, is as much as the entire trip used to be.

I'm curious about this. What's wrong with it?

On 3/8/2019 at 6:29 PM, frenchie said:

Why, what's odd about that?  I'm an amazon prime member, and I buy from them quite a bit.  Not just household stuff, either.  Nearly 20% of what I spent on materials and supplies in my business, last year, was stuff i bought from amazon.  That puts them well behind my local lumberyard, but ahead of any local hardware store, Lowe's, or Home Depot. 

And how do you get lumber or sheets of drywall or whatever you're buying onto a train?

Look at the help wanted ads for the trades down here and one of the things employers are seeking is "reliable transportation." They're hoping it has an 8 foot bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 12:34 PM, Laker said:

Marx got the problem right on.  It was the solution that he did not get right.  The problems remain.  The free market cannot account for free market failures. Neoliberalism ala Friedman has proven to be a bust also due to those same free market failures on a social basis.  I hope this is the start of a change in American culture.  The first thing is that even with the sword of the military providing security, someone can always stab you in the back as in 9/11.  So why not use some of the money for the military, where large increases in budget only bring about small increases in security, to bring about large changes in social stability?

What do you suggest?  Which freedoms do you want to dispose of first?

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

image019.jpg

It is not just fascinating that the angry, old white men on the right are so 'taken' with her, it is that the quality of their attacks is so pathetic. They are so focussed on AOC that they are missing the fact that the more mainstream Dems will eat their lunch in 2020. If they had.a clue, which they don't, they would be focussing their energies on the real threats they face. AOC has influence within her party but only influence. Her greatest strength is that she will get a younger generation off their asses and voting.

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

6EF663A1-C717-49C4-8A67-C0EBAC121363.jpeg

I suffer from AOCES* and I'm enjoying the fuck out of it!

 

* Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Encouragement Syndrome (keep doin' what your doin' girlfriend!)

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 7:51 PM, Left Shift said:

Amazon is, unfortunately, controlling about 50% of all retail purchases, directly or by influencing and/or managing the market.  It is NOT a healthy situation.  

Walmart destroyed tens of thousands of small town Main Street mom & pops and now Amazon is controlling wholesalers and urban retailers. I refuse to walk into a Walmart and I won't let my purchasers order from Amazon.  Fuck 'em.

I know, I know, "Get Off My Lawn".  But actually Amazon came and sat, quite literally, on my sidewalk and devoured my neighborhood.  The unintended consequences of "convenience" is not to be ignored.  

And they sure as hell don't need any subsidies.  

Hey, NYC...fix the subways.

 

 

Amazon isn't controlling them.  The folks who make retail purchases could be in control.  The fact is other retailers are not responding.  There is someone out there supplying amazon at a price and amazon is making a profit providing the logistics of the sale.  Amazon just happens to be better at that than others.

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

Amazon isn't controlling them.  The folks who make retail purchases could be in control.  The fact is other retailers are not responding.  There is someone out there supplying amazon at a price and amazon is making a profit providing the logistics of the sale.  Amazon just happens to be better at that than others.

It is better than that.  The retailers that are responding are selling on Amazon because that is how the retail purchaser wants to buy products.  Walmart has created a great benefit for poor people - affordable stuff.  Poor people line up all day long to buy stuff from Walmart.

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

It is better than that.  The retailers that are responding are selling on Amazon because that is how the retail purchaser wants to buy products.  Walmart has created a great benefit for poor people - affordable stuff.  Poor people line up all day long to buy stuff from Walmart.

And there in lies the problem.  Democrats are no longer the party of “the poor”.  They are the party of “who can we exploit to gain power, which is all we care about”.

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J28 said:

we exploit

Actually, it is quite human.  Power can be intoxicating.  The little don is example A.  Some of us have a little philosophy to try to stay humble.  I like the confession we recite on Sunday mornings.  Different every time, but it is a similar refrain.

I do believe we all need to constantly reform.  Many people deserve accolades for what they try to do.  Some are politicians, some artisans and some common laborers.  I'm home this morning and missed my little church because my daughter was in town.

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

Actually, it is quite human.  Power can be intoxicating.  The little don is example A.  Some of us have a little philosophy to try to stay humble.  I like the confession we recite on Sunday mornings.  Different every time, but it is a similar refrain.

I do believe we all need to constantly reform.  Many people deserve accolades for what they try to do.  Some are politicians, some artisans and some common laborers.  I'm home this morning and missed my little church because my daughter was in town.

How about we reform by tightening the limits on government rather than erasing them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Government restrains people who would otherwise exploit.  It is a delicate balance and depends upon good folks.  Government is not evil per se.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasher said:

Government restrains people who would otherwise exploit.  It is a delicate balance and depends upon good folks.  Government is not evil per se.

 

There is that word "exploit."  It can be used to mean almost anything.  I exploited Amazon the other day to get myself some speakers for my computer.  I made the sellers compete on price. Is that bad?

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

There is that word "exploit."  It can be used to mean almost anything.  I exploited Amazon the other day to get myself some speakers for my computer.  I made the sellers compete on price. Is that bad?

Exploit is a word that has meaning.  It does not mean that I went to the grocery store and paid.  It might mean when you hire children to do labor and take away their future.  It might mean when a company pollutes the town lake.  

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

There is that word "exploit."  It can be used to mean almost anything.  I exploited Amazon the other day to get myself some speakers for my computer.  I made the sellers compete on price. Is that bad?

Clearly English isn’t your first language. It may be your only one, but you haven’t learned it yet.  At least not to use in public.

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

Exploit is a word that has meaning.  It does not mean that I went to the grocery store and paid.  It might mean when you hire children to do labor and take away their future.  It might mean when a company pollutes the town lake.  

It means that you took full advantage of something.  So what?  We should do that.

Put children and pollution aside.  If I offer to pay you $2.00/hour to work for me, what harm have I caused you?

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

Clearly English isn’t your first language. It may be your only one, but you haven’t learned it yet.  At least not to use in public.

What a waste of a post.  Do you have a point to make in there somewhere?

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

There are moral standards that prevail through out history.  You disregard them at your own peril.

 

If I offer you $2/hour, don't accept.  See how easy that was?

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

If I offer you $2/hour, don't accept.  See how easy that was?

If I offer you x to suck my y because you are starving, is that exploiting?

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

If I offer you x to suck my y because you are starving, is that exploiting?

If I offer the grocery store $2 to buy a loaf of bread, it is exploiting.  So what?  Is that starving person better off with or without your offer?

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

If I offer the grocery store $2 to buy a loaf of bread, it is exploiting.  So what?  Is that starving person better off with or without your offer?

So when I buy up your public shares and then dump them on the market so I can buy the whole thing on the cheap, all good?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again jizkid?

When you have no ability to present a rational case for something, the next step is to silence the opposition.  I get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government has many reasons to be.  We like to see society, all of us, have a healthy life.  If I destroy your company for my greed, that is not okay.  If you want the biggest aggressor to win you lose.  Because all of the rest of creatures in the forest, big and small, will make sure that you cease to exist.

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

The government has many reasons to be.  We like to see society, all of us, have a healthy life.  If I destroy your company for my greed, that is not okay.  If you want the biggest aggressor to win you lose.  Because all of the rest of creatures in the forest, big and small, will make sure that you cease to exist.

If you destroy my company with a baseball bat, then that is a perfect case for government intervention.  If you destroy my company through your greed by offering lower cost, higher quality products that society wants, then it is perfectly ok.  See the difference?

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

you sight

So nice to see you post.  I don't think anyone in power gets a hall pass.  I try to stay humble because ...

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

If you destroy my company with a baseball bat, then that is a perfect case for government intervention.  If you destroy my company through your greed by offering lower cost, higher quality products that society wants, then it is perfectly ok.  See the difference?

Stock manipulation doesn't look like big bat?  You are naive.

 

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

  Government is not evil per se.

 

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again jizkid?

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib?

That was fun.

  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J28 said:

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

I kind of like the fact we fund a public hospital.  I like feeling safe on the street.  It is good that people stop when they should and I can go without fear.  My little place will not be seized by the government.  The daughter is having a nice ride on government financed highways.  Damn why I am so angry?  Because idiots gave us a little don.  Hint:  I am not angry, just disappointed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

 I like the confession we recite on Sunday mornings. 

What? You mean posting "Dog is an idiot" here on Sunday?

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

Exploit is a word that has meaning.  It does not mean that I went to the grocery store and paid.  It might mean when you hire children to do labor and take away their future.  It might mean when a company pollutes the town lake.  

You're attempting to fix stupid there Hasher.

Link to post
Share on other sites