If T convicted, are early votes for him wasted?

@averagejoe1 said
Then, in plain un-linked english, where is the WSJ editorial board behind in Economic writings?

They are Pre-Keynesians.

@no1marauder said
I'd say demanding sex from a female employee in order for her to keep her job or get a promotion is worse.

Maybe that's why Fox News had to pay $1 million and Jeffrey Toobin $0.

So only conservatives/repubs womanize, chase after girls? Who was the abberrant on the today show with secret locks on his office door, he was run outa town. Matt Lauer.
Not a whatboutism, but it gets boring when y'all reference some repub situation as if no Dem has ever been caught up in the same crap. Clinton was a rapist,Trump was something like that. zzzzzzzzz

@averagejoe1 said
So only conservatives/repubs womanize, chase after girls? Who was the abberrant on the today show with secret locks on his office door, he was run outa town. Matt Lauer.
Not a whatboutism, but it gets boring when y'all reference some repub situation as if no Dem has ever been caught up in the same crap. Clinton was a rapist,Trump was something like that. zzzzzzzzz

What a raving, idiotic hypocrite you are.

Mott (not me) brought up the subject, you insisted I answer his question about "sexual perverts" on other networks besides CNN and now when I do you cry about it.

He and you are the ones who "referenced" the "situation".

@no1marauder said
They are Pre-Keynesians.

WSJ fairy land economics: All the money Jeff bezos gives to his shareholders was earned by him alone. Just ignore that wealthy shareholders profit from billions of tax dollars funneled to them via corporate welfare handouts.

@wildgrass said
WSJ fairy land economics: All the money Jeff bezos gives to his shareholders was earned by him alone. Just ignore that wealthy shareholders profit from billions of tax dollars funneled to them via corporate welfare handouts.

This post makes no sense. He does not 'give to ' his shareholders. They bought the stock. It grows with the value of the company. Bezos has a successor now, but neither of them gie money to shareholders. If you libs get your way and the producers are required to give money to shareholders and/or anybody, the USA will certainly be owned by the government.
Certainly you know that the govt works for us, but that you want the govt to own us. You know that...............................right?

@averagejoe1 said
This post makes no sense. He does not 'give to ' his shareholders. They bought the stock. It grows with the value of the company. Bezos has a successor now, but neither of them gie money to shareholders. If you libs get your way and the producers are required to give money to shareholders and/or anybody, the USA will certainly be owned by the government.
Certainl ...[text shortened]... ks for us, but that you want the govt to own us. You know that...............................right?

The value of the company would grow less if they didn't cash so many welfare checks.

I just want some acknowledgement that rich, lazy, pool-float-sitting billionaires get a lot more (a lot) welfare direct from taxpayers than poor folks who can't afford food.

@no1marauder said
That would be called a "whataboutism" which has nothing to do with the point you were apparently trying to make.

It stands.

You want to measure a Co. by fines paid and on the basis of those fines the Co. gets what? some kind of integrity rating?

The difference is:

One produces something that you can take it or leave it, mostly the only cost is you endure some advertising.

The other you are forced to fund, then after you are forced to fund you were coerced to have that product pumped into your body, pumped into your most personal sacrosanct possession, your own physical being under threat of your job, your home, your business, your career.

The 'whataboutism' is what about choice.

@wajoma said
It stands.

You want to measure a Co. by fines paid and on the basis of those fines the Co. gets what? some kind of integrity rating?

The difference is:

One produces something that you can take it or leave it, mostly the only cost is you endure some advertising.

The other you are forced to fund, then after you are forced to fund you were coerced to have that pro ...[text shortened]... eat of your job, your home, your business, your career.

The 'whataboutism' is what about choice.

To refresh your recollection:

Wajoma:And one of your many problems is that you don't seem to realise all news sites are the same. They are all propaganda machines with their own slant, choosing what to, and what not to publish and how to publish it in order to maintain that slant.


no1: Could you name another news site that just had to pay out $780 million for repeatedly defaming a business?

Your "whataboutism" has absolutely nothing to do with the point you raised i.e. the "they're all the same" bromide.

My response had a lot to do with it since the particular news agency admitted that the court had found many of their statements to be intentionally false.

The rest of your ranting has been covered ad nauseam; your arguments that governments should be helpless to enforce any coercive measures to lessen the spread of a deadly, contagious disease are non-serious.

@no1marauder said

The rest of your ranting has been covered ad nauseam; your arguments that governments should be helpless to enforce any coercive measures to lessen the spread of a deadly, contagious disease are non-serious.

...including turning reluctant citizens into lab rats with a product that may seriously harm them and in some cases result in their death.

Fact: the long term effects of the clotshot are unknown.

No.1 actually calls that 'non-serious' he used the term 'non-serious' in relation to a mass dosing experiment that destroyed wealth on a world scale that dwarfs wars. Non-serious is the greatest transfer of wealth in history to mega drug corporations already multi billion dollar Co's.

@wajoma said
...including turning reluctant citizens into lab rats with a product that may seriously harm them and in some cases result in their death.

Fact: the long term effects of the clotshot are unknown.

I've wasting three years dealing with this BS and have no patience to waste any further time with such idiocy.

The vaccines saved millions of lives; the only mistakes that were made were not being coercive enough as far as people wanting to refuse to take the shots but still mingle with others in commercial and other public settings.

@no1marauder said

The vaccines saved millions of lives; the only mistakes that were made were not being coercive enough as far as people wanting to refuse to take the shots but still mingle with others in commercial and other public settings.

Fact: The clotshot did not stop you getting or giving the wuflu. It did not prevent you from getting sick from the wuflu. It did not prevent you from dying from the wuflu. You did however run the risk of serious harm or death from the clotshot.

"I've wasting three years dealing with this BS" same as the guy working on the perpetual motion engine.

@wildgrass said
The value of the company would grow less if they didn't cash so many welfare checks.

I just want some acknowledgement that rich, lazy, pool-float-sitting billionaires get a lot more (a lot) welfare direct from taxpayers than poor folks who can't afford food.

Go for it Wildgrass, call your congressman. It all boils down to tax loopholes. Get rid of them but be careful what you wish for. My friend inherited beautiful farmland, we shoot dove there. Get this, he did govt deal, look it up , a conservation easement, which means his family can use it as their home for the rest of time, but the govt has title to it, and they actually made money in that the govt pays for their agricultural uses of the land. No taxes, they made money.
I know you think maybe they should give the land to pot smokers, but, like I said, call your congressman!

@averagejoe1 said
Go for it Wildgrass, call your congressman. It all boils down to tax loopholes. Get rid of them but be careful what you wish for. My friend inherited beautiful farmland, we shoot dove there. Get this, he did govt deal, look it up , a conservation easement, which means his family can use it as their home for the rest of time, but the govt has title to it, and they actual ...[text shortened]... w you think maybe they should give the land to pot smokers, but, like I said, call your congressman!

No no no. Not tax loopholes. You're not paying attention. The company expenditures in payroll, what they have to spend money on, is directly subsidized by the federal government. At least 4,000 employees that work for bezos at Amazon are paid with tax dollars.

@wildgrass said
No no no. Not tax loopholes. You're not paying attention. The company expenditures in payroll, what they have to spend money on, is directly subsidized by the federal government. At least 4,000 employees that work for bezos at Amazon are paid with tax dollars.

Oh, I missed that. OK, that is law, hammered out by a legislature that we voted on. When the law was made, they, who would be more well-versed in the atomosphere and pros and cons, made these decisons. Probably knew to do it, don't you know. If you voted NO, waving a sign, it may have wreaked havoc on the companies the affected. Bless you, but you just don't understand. You REALLY need to start watchin FOX BUSINESS.
A climate freak (are you one) would vote YES on EVs. You will be soooorrrrrryy.
Me, I would vote NO on Evs. You people are taking away our choices, Wildgrass.

@averagejoe1 said
Oh, I missed that. OK, that is law, hammered out by a legislature that we voted on. When the law was made, they, who would be more well-versed in the atomosphere and pros and cons, made these decisons. Probably knew to do it, don't you know. If you voted NO, waving a sign, it may have wreaked havoc on the companies the affected. Bless you, but you just don't unders ...[text shortened]... e soooorrrrrryy.
Me, I would vote NO on Evs. You people are taking away our choices, Wildgrass.

All fine and good. If you own shares of AMZN then you are a welfare recipient.