On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 3:26:31 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:35:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 3:16:52 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:15:45 -0500,
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 14:40:56 -0800, Bob F wrote:
We all know about Wells Fargo
Now, there's Comcast
"However, Comcast's behavior in Washington might take the cake. The
state's Attorney General has filed an amended complaint alleging that
Comcast subscribed more than half of its Service Protection Plan
customers without consent since the option was first available in 2011.
It frequently enrolled customers without even mentioning the plan,
according to the lawsuit, but the worst was when it did -- employees
reportedly claimed the $6 monthly service was free, and would even sign
people up after they'd explicitly refused it.
......
The Attorney General's Office said that Comcast has repeatedly refused
to provide call recordings, and later admitted that it had deleted 90
percent of calls after it had been told to preserve them."
https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/25/...=recirculation
Yeah those democrats are sneaky *******s. (David Cohen, VP Comcast was
And who is the president of Comcast. And who are all the other officers
of Comcast. And who are the officers of wells Fargo and Bank of
America, and Enron and lots of other sleazy corporations. Cohen isn't
even mentioned in the url but yet you single him out because he's a
Democrat. Your outrage is quite selective. Should I call this typical
Republican baloney?
How about calling it typical lib hypocrisy? Did you see who made that
post? Bob F. He's like you, a total partisan,
First off, despite your Rump-like charge, I'm not a total partisan, but
it's the conservative baloney I read here that prompts me to reply.
When there is liberal baloney, there are plenty of you who will reply.
Good example of why you're a partisn hack. You only speak out about
things members of the other party does that are bad. When it comes to
your own party, it's see no evil, speak no evil.
And in this case, it's not just baloney, it's nonsense, because bringing
up politics when Bob was talking about *corporate morality*, not
politics, If you think Republican corportate executives are any more
moral you're a fool.
Of course it's still relevant. You libs like to rant about business,
how bad they are, how they need to be controlled. So when one of you
brings up an example and it turns out that a lib actually runs it,
that's special.
who finds fault with
all Republicans,
More defamatory nonsense. The one who gets 98% of my criticism, Stumpie
Rumpkin, isn't even a Republican. Name any actual Republicans I've
found fault with. If you can think of three or even two I'd be
surprised.
You can't name one Democrat you've ever criticized.
with anything they do,
More defamatory nonsense. I only criticize things they do which are
wrong. Find me a counter-example.
ROFL. The problem is you refuse to see any of the many things that
Democrats do that are wrong. Hillary takes $135 mil from the guys who
need her approval to sell 20% of the US uranium capacity to the Russians.
She votes yes. You say, all is well, nothing wrong there at all.
ROFL
yet he then makes a post about
the alleged evil of an American company that's headed by a lib.
Bob didn't do that. He said nothing about his being liberal. And the
guy is not the head. He's a VP.
Of course he did it. And of course he didn't point out that the guy
is a lib, because he didn't know it. That is precisely the irony.
You
don't expect blowback from that? He's like you, anything a lib does,
they excuse.
What did he excuse? He cares about Comcast because like most of you, he
subscribes either to Comcast or one of its competitors. It's ON-TOPIC
for Home Repair. But you others had to make this political.
Hillary can take $135 mil into their "charity" from the
Here comes the part where again, you defend Hillary taking $135 mil
from guys who had business before the US govt, who needed her approval
to sell the US uranium to the Russians.
It is a charity.
Allegedly it is. When you have one that you load up with political hacks,
hire your own daughter, hand out business only to those politically
connected to you, then I'm not so sure. Has anyone even figured out if
all those political hacks employed there even show up for work or how
much actual "work" they do?
I'm sure there are plenty Reps out there looking for a
scandal there and yet they've only been able to "find" one by lying.
If you don't see anything wrong with a Sec of State taking $135 mil
in donations from Canadians who needed Hillary's approval to sell
20% of the US uranium to Russia, then of course you're a partisan
hack or incredibly stupid. Just imagine if Jared Kushner or
Rex Tillerson was doing that, what would you say? You'd say it was
digusting, they should be locked up. Hillary does it and it's swell.
You really think those Canadians suddenly became philanthropic to the
tune of $135 mil and the Clintons were the only "charity" they could
find?
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680
Rates 93 and 95 out of 100 for an average of 93.9
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-foundation-c/
"In a radio interview Aug. 23, 2016, Republican National Committee
chairman Reince Priebus wrongly interpreted tax forms submitted by the
Clinton Foundation to claim that the foundation spends the vast majority
of its donations on overhead and not charitable work..... "I mean the
fact is, is if theyč“e got about 80 percent overhead and 20 percent of
the money's actually getting into the place that it should""
Actually he has it reversed. They spend 86.9% of the money they take in
on its programs. This is reminiscent of some charge during the campaign
when Stumpie reversed some numbers regarding black people to make them
look bad.
If you put charity in quotes again without giving a good explanation
(and I don't think you can find one), I'll consider you a liar.
I just gave you the absolute best evidence that what's going on there
is absolutely disgusting and should be investigated to the fullest by
the FBI.
guys who need her approval for the sale of 20% of US uranium to the
You keep harping on this but the recommendation did not originate with
her and she was one of about 10 people who had to sign off on it And
there are other reasons why the scandal there is IN YOUR MINDS.
OK Micky, I've run this by you before. In the town in MD where you live
in, if it was found out that a developer that needed a zoning change for a
new development had donated $100K to a family charity run by a guy on
the planning board, had give $25K to his wife for a speech, and then
he didn't disclose it and recuse himself, but instead voted yes, what do
you think would happen? And if charges were brought, do you think the
lame "I wasn't the only vote" excuse would be any defense? Even if a
crime can't be proven, because the Clintons are so slick, at best, it's
the worst case of pay to play politics in American history. And it's
one reason Trump is sitting in the WH right now, because people were
disgusted with her. And I'm disgusted with people that make excuses
and claim that it's all just swell.
Russians, and you say all is well, that's cool. When you're ready
to admit that's wrong, that at best it's the worst example of pay to
play in American history, that it should be make illegal, then you'll
have some credibility.
When you retract the nonsense you had in the precedign post -- actually
the most poltical nonsense I recall you posting -- that I point out
here, you'll have some credibility.
I have my credibility. I've criticized the libs, Hillary above for
example and called them out when they are wrong. I've criticized Trump
when he is wrong too. You're the one with no credibility and you're
going to proceed now to tell us all gain how what Hillary did with that
$135 mil is just swell.
Hillary's biggest "bundler" funneling mega millions to her) Their
networks (MSNBC and NBC) are just PR outlets for the DNC.
And FOX and its affiliates are just a PR outlet for the RNC. Again,
selective outrage.
Yeah, one Fox News to how many ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc? The rightful outrage is that it's lopsided, not
that there is favoritism.
Assuming your evaluation is correct, now you're criticizing free
enterprise.
So, isn't that allowed? You didn't have a problem when your buddy
Bob F started the thread, criticizing free enterprise.
You've changed the subject, which had been corporate
immorality in a corporation with ONE liberal vice-president, who you
seem to have concluded was responsible for the sleazy intentional
overcharging that Bob pointed out. Criminal actiions. Fraud. Lying to
customers about charges.
But now you've changed the topic to things which are totally legal,
supposedly liberal executives bring a liberal slant to their news.
Wow, as threads grow, other issues, counterpoints, come in. Did you
just fall off the turnip truck?
If more liberals invest their money in radio, tv, and newspapers and
more liberals take jobs as reporters and editors than do conservatives,
who are you to complain about that?
I have as much right to complain about the overwhelming lib dominance
in the media as you do to bitch about any and all of the crap you
bitch about here regularly.