Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 285 of 548 FirstFirst ... 185235275283284285286287295335385 ... LastLast
Results 4,261 to 4,275 of 8220
  1. #4261
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So to be clear you are against capping someone's investment income potential in regards to price gouging but not in regards to rent control?
    How are you tying investment potential to price gouging???? Give us all an example of this.

    And to be clear…I am against rent control.

  2. #4262
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    How are you tying investment potential to price gouging???? Give us all an example of this.

    And to be clear…I am against rent control.
    You are capping the potential profit someone can make off of their property.

    Someone buys water, that is an investment designed to create more wealth by selling it at a higher price and earning a profit. Who are you to cap how much they can re-sell their own property for?

  3. #4263
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You are capping the potential profit someone can make off of their property.

    Someone buys water, that is an investment designed to create more wealth by selling it at a higher price and earning a profit. Who are you to cap how much they can re-sell their own property for?
    OK. Great. Gouge em all.

  4. #4264
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    OK. Great. Gouge em all.
    Figured that was how you really felt.

  5. #4265
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    32,413

  6. #4266
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309

  7. #4267
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Fox News (GASP!!!!) had several tapes of dems. including Joe Biden, calling the Clinton impeachment a "lynching" and using the term "lynch mob."

    I guess 15 or so years the term "Lynch" was OK --oops all right-- but now it is not.

    So now it is…

    queer
    niggardly
    uppity
    OK
    lynch

    …as far as common words that we cannot use.

    Who has that list????
    Hope you gave the old lady some bail money. You are sure to get hauled in now.

  8. #4268
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Hope you gave the old lady some bail money. You are sure to get hauled in now.
    Nothing surprises me anymore.

  9. #4269
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    50,888

  10. #4270
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    102,896
    She did do a good job. But Katie Porter is probably the best questioner in Congress. I really like her and am truly impressed each time I see her.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  11. #4271
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    32,413
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is this stupid.

    https://saraacarter.com/ocasio-corte...-supremacists/

    Ocasio-Cortez to Zuckerberg: Why are you partnering with ‘The Daily Caller who has ties to white supremacists’
    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was questioned by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a hearing at the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday about Facebook’s fact-checking operations.

    “Why Facebook is partnering with ‘the Daily Caller’, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook,” asked Ocasio-Cortez, without providing or referring to any proof as to why she’s calling ‘The Daily Caller’ a publication “with white supremacist ties” on the House floor.

    “We actually don’t appoint the independent fact-checkers,” Mark Zuckerberg responded. “They go through an independent organization called the Independent Fact-Checking Network, that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.”

    “So you would say that white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking?” Ocasio-Cortez continued her question.

    Ocasio-Cortez went on to ask the Facebook CEO also about Facebook’s practices with political ads and how would they screen and fact check the ads.

    “Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

    “I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad. That’s different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you had lied,” replied Zuckerberg.

    this is why ****ing morons are brainwashed against certain media, because nutjobs like AOC say this **** and people are gullible enough to believe it. it's ridiculous that people are this stupid, including AOC and anyone that wants to believe everything she says.






    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  12. #4272
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

    Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

    Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

    Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

    Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

    Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

    That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

    And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

    To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.

  13. #4273
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    102,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

    Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

    Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

    Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

    Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

    Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

    That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

    And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

    To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.
    One of the things that I like about Katie Porter is how she asks questions of the CEOs and they give an answer that directly contradicts a legal filing that their company has made in court. She did it with Facebook and Data (Mark Zuckerberg) and she's done it before. And most importantly she will do it again.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  14. #4274
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626

  15. #4275
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    50,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    What, exactly, is everyone so impressed with while watching AOC and Katie Porter question Zuckerberg?

    Do you realize how these congressional "inquiries" work?

    Point 1…The speaker and the committee cairs determine the topics, time allowed, and who they wish question and who gets to ask what questions.

    Point 2…It is totally 100% partisan and the repubs do it as much as the dems. It all depends who is in power.

    Point 3…The objective is to make the person being questioned look bad. And the questioner has the upper hand by far. AOC consistently talked over Zuckerberg's responses and when he have a response she didn't like, she ignored it and moved on to another facet of the inquiry. And she managed to get her racist slant introduced which was probably the overall objective to start with.

    Porter asks Zuckerberg to commit to spending an hour a day for the next year watching employee complaint videos (or content videos whatever that is) and then makes him look bad and unsympathetic when he does not commit to that absurd request. The guy is the head of a huge corporation worth billions with thousands of employees. No one will commit to such a stupid request let alone anyone at that level. But Porter got what she wanted…she made him look bad.

    That's the point of these aired hearings…make the person look bad. And the person in the hot seat cannot say what they want towards the congressional without being penalized.

    And to repeat…both parties do it. When/if the repubs regain control you will see more of the same.

    To be impressed by these two is ridiculous.
    Translated: I don’t like it so neither should you. And get those kids off my lawn!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •