Well...
![[Image: 122be02b44e19b0a888d16cdbf8ba0a8.jpg]](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231004/122be02b44e19b0a888d16cdbf8ba0a8.jpg)
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Matt Gaetz did this because in his opinion spending levels are still too high and debt is still too high.
I agree with him completely and I think it's only going to get worse if we don't make tough choices now.
But these spending levels have nothing to do with Ukraine and nothing to do with illegal immigration. Those are peanuts. A lot of it is the demographic crunch of retired baby boomers that we've seen coming for decades. But an almost as large part is the failure of Obamacare to reduce medical prices and expenditures, and another nearly equal part is Biden's student loan relief. Those are the two things that Republicans should be hammering Democrats on.
I'm sure the people in Hawaii who were affected by the fires would like those peanuts.
(10-04-2023, 08:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2023, 08:01 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]“A new survey reports more than a quarter of white evangelical Protestants…”
This couldn’t be more targeted if they claimed it was left handed Peugeot drivers born in months that end in y.
I understand your point but the fact of the matter is the MSM attempted to paint a narrative that QAnon was a guiding force of the right. It was a looney conspiracy theory regarded as just that by a wide majority of Republicans.
Okay, I think we're going down the message board rabbit hole of arguing smaller and smaller points, but I really just want to know if anyone on this message board has heard of "Red Caesarism."
Heck I still don’t know anything about this QAnon you keep referring to, so no.
(10-04-2023, 08:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2023, 08:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, I think we're going down the message board rabbit hole of arguing smaller and smaller points, but I really just want to know if anyone on this message board has heard of "Red Caesarism."
Heck I still don’t know anything about this QAnon you keep referring to, so no.
Well for one thing he uses the MSM name which doesn't exist and any of the people who believe it would say he is a liberal for using it.
If you don't know about it, someone posted a bunch of stuff on some dark web adjacent sites. A lot of factual info and some stuff that was proven to be true later. Supposedly, there are hidden meanings, signals, and deltas in the future when what was posted will happen days, month, years later. A bunch of people posted hidden meanings they found but it's all free range crazy and put a bunch of pictures on the wall and connect a bunch of strings.
Then there is some stuff connected to Trump and how they say Trump confirmed it's real. If stuff doesn't happen in 24/25, then I don't see how it would continue to be believed.
I've never heard of Red Caesarism, I searched and only see a few stories on it in the last few days. Some MSM writer probably got trolled again and then the MSM all write the same story.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
(10-04-2023, 08:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2023, 08:01 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]“A new survey reports more than a quarter of white evangelical Protestants…”
This couldn’t be more targeted if they claimed it was left handed Peugeot drivers born in months that end in y.
I understand your point but the fact of the matter is the MSM attempted to paint a narrative that QAnon was a guiding force of the right. It was a looney conspiracy theory regarded as just that by a wide majority of Republicans.
Okay, I think we're going down the message board rabbit hole of arguing smaller and smaller points, but I really just want to know if anyone on this message board has heard of "Red Caesarism."
I have no idea what it is. I asked my husband and he says, "isn't that the special sauce Little Caesars uses on their pizza?"
I figure it's a faaar right thing. Like the idiots who spend weekends with their militia buddies doing stupid [BLEEP] and claiming it's to "protect America" and all that jazz.
Stuff like this and QAnon are to Republicans what the queer agenda and blm is to Democrats. The every day Ds and Rs are not into this crazy crap, they're just trying to live their lives.
I wonder if any of the eight will get expelled or anything. Lol people seem pissed.
(10-05-2023, 07:17 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Fewer Americans want businesses to take a stance.
Maybe the votes skewed lower because they polled laid off Bud Light workers.
Businesses should operate for the benefit of, and with the direction of, the owners, within the limits of the law. As a stockholder, which makes me a part owner, of many publicly traded corporations, as most of us are in one way or another, I would direct the people managing those businesses to do whatever is in the best interest of the owners. And if taking a public stance is in the best interest of the owners, and benefits the owners in some way, do it. Otherwise, don't do it.
That's a long way of saying companies should be in business to make money for their owners, not to change the world. And I believe most of them do adhere to that rule, because I believe money is the fundamental driver of almost everything. I suspect that in almost every case of a company taking a public stance on some issue, it's for the purpose of making more money.
(10-05-2023, 07:34 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-05-2023, 07:17 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Fewer Americans want businesses to take a stance.
Maybe the votes skewed lower because they polled laid off Bud Light workers.
Businesses should operate for the benefit of, and with the direction of, the owners, within the limits of the law. As a stockholder, which makes me a part owner, of many publicly traded corporations, as most of us are in one way or another, I would direct the people managing those businesses to do whatever is in the best interest of the owners. And if taking a public stance is in the best interest of the owners, and benefits the owners in some way, do it. Otherwise, don't do it.
That's a long way of saying companies should be in business to make money for their owners, not to change the world. And I believe most of them do adhere to that rule, because I believe money is the fundamental driver of almost everything.
I agree, however, it’s difficult for me to imagine a situation where a company could take a stance on an issue that wouldn’t anger some segment of consumers. Especially given the boycott mania spread by social media these days.
My stance is no stance. Just do business and keep your mouth shut.
(10-05-2023, 07:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-05-2023, 07:34 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Businesses should operate for the benefit of, and with the direction of, the owners, within the limits of the law. As a stockholder, which makes me a part owner, of many publicly traded corporations, as most of us are in one way or another, I would direct the people managing those businesses to do whatever is in the best interest of the owners. And if taking a public stance is in the best interest of the owners, and benefits the owners in some way, do it. Otherwise, don't do it.
That's a long way of saying companies should be in business to make money for their owners, not to change the world. And I believe most of them do adhere to that rule, because I believe money is the fundamental driver of almost everything.
I agree, however, it’s difficult for me to imagine a situation where a company could take a stance on an issue that wouldn’t anger some segment of consumers. Especially given the boycott mania spread by social media these days.
My stance is no stance. Just do business and keep your mouth shut.
Presumably, such a decision is forecast to generate more revenue/consumer support from those who advocate for the issue, than it loses to those who do not. I expect there's frequent dissent at the senior management and director levels, over the direction and extent of involvement in social causes. The Anheuser-Busch boardroom has probably been a little raucous lately.
Personally, I don't want to be bombarded with social messages while I'm watching football, walking through an airport, buying a refrigerator, or at any other time, but it's EVERYWHERE in advertising.
(10-05-2023, 07:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-05-2023, 07:34 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Businesses should operate for the benefit of, and with the direction of, the owners, within the limits of the law. As a stockholder, which makes me a part owner, of many publicly traded corporations, as most of us are in one way or another, I would direct the people managing those businesses to do whatever is in the best interest of the owners. And if taking a public stance is in the best interest of the owners, and benefits the owners in some way, do it. Otherwise, don't do it.
That's a long way of saying companies should be in business to make money for their owners, not to change the world. And I believe most of them do adhere to that rule, because I believe money is the fundamental driver of almost everything.
I agree, however, it’s difficult for me to imagine a situation where a company could take a stance on an issue that wouldn’t anger some segment of consumers. Especially given the boycott mania spread by social media these days.
My stance is no stance. Just do business and keep your mouth shut.
That is definitely the least risky approach.
Evidently everything is targeting the LGBTQ+ community.
Flying American and state flags. But how does this target them?
A law that allows for the death penalty of child rapists. How? How does this target LGBTQ+ people? Because when I hear folks say that it makes me think there's something going on in that community that shouldn't be. Otherwise why be concerned?