[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread
- Thread starter -SS-
- Start date
Are you fucking insane? Every company is founded on risk. Every expansion is risk. Every hire and layoff and new credit is risk. Exxon plunging tens of millions of dollars in exploring for new oil is a risk. Wal Mart opening a new store in Idaho is a risk. Me hiring a new carpenter is a risk. Me signing a contract with a new builder is a risk.
Why do I have to address your retarded assertion that CEO's cost our society jobs? Its YOUR assertion, you prove it. I'll wait.
Fool
Whiny Bitch
Just perusing this list, I see a lot of subjective debate over grammar usage, twitter comments, and punditry. I don't see many, if any, actual news stories that Fox News presented as truth, covered for 8 plus hours of network television as truth, and then had to retract. Now this is of course my opinion on the matter, but if you'd like to present to me 3 Fox News stories that you believe to be of similar caliber to the Don Jr. Wikileaks story of last week, the Deutsche bank story, and the Brian Ross Flynn story, I'm all ears. And that's just from this month. I find those to be far more egregious than whether or not adding text is technically forgery or that someone said MSNBC didn't cover a story when it did.
please provide hard evidence that it was russia that gave wikileaks the hacked emails, and not seth rich. i'll wait here.
So, you think that their story of "adding text is technically forgery" is small time rather than attempting to discredit victims of sexual assault and engaging in more victim blaming in regards to a borderline pedophile running as a US Senator? Ok. Perhaps you will never be convinced and that's on you rather than me to do your research for you.
Fool
Whiny Bitch
Every network editorializes and presents half truths and misleading titles. Given how rabidly anti-Fox the left is, I would think that if they were being forced to retract stories every few days, fire reporters, suspend anchors, and settle multi-million dollar defamation suits that there would be a huge list of items that weren't punditry tweets.
If you're not going to be respectful then I won't be either.
We were talking about substantive risks, not the I peed in the wind risks.
We were talking about corporations, not you, not some small employer like me. I can't think of a single Wall Mart store closure due to lack of clientele. Store failings due to this are probably 1 in a 1000. probably less.
Why isn't risk taking down companies? because they are risk adverse. But since you feel the captains of industry are great entrepreneurs - balancing so many chances on the head of a pin - perhaps you can name a few examples of large businesses that failed from risk taking?
As for job losses/gains, its obvious to most of us that free trade agreements have resulted in economic and employment stagnation for the last 30 years. It's such an obvious fact it doesn't require proofing.
It sounds like you're a developer. You hold on too land then when prices ensure at least a doubling of profit you start hiring builders. And you're developing in Calgary, oil town still flush with oil riches. One of my best friends is in this industry. I just called him to ask if any developer has gone bankrupt here in economically depressed SW Ontario. He said there is none in the last 20 years. I can't imagine how risky it would be in oil rich Calgary.
You can play up the drama of your occupation probably to morally rationalize whatever, but your self serving bs doesn't pass muster.
p.s. I always remain respectful if I am shown respect. So you'll have to excuse my harsh tone in deconstructing your self serving bs. Call my names - I won't spare the lash.
"I'm a developer driving around in my Maseratti. I'm a risk taker."
- amRam
"It isn't very risky if the choice is eating chateau briand or sirloin tips."
- arsin
Last edited:
Exactly how i feel. 100%
Chaol says that socialism doesn't have to become authoritarianism
but at its core root it is just that.......it is authority by the Governing
I mean this is the universal definition.
Show me a socialist country without limited political freedom today?
You can't.......they don't exist because you can't have that and Socialism
The two mix like oil and water.
Socialism is nothing but a society putting a consolidated and concentrated centralization of trust into just a few people, on person, to Universally and unequivocally decide what is right for all of us
as they run out of others money to use, others resources to squander, others time to complete their own goals, violence and threats and abuse of said power are always the end result of them keeping such a society alive.
yet alone thriving......