DOW down nearly 1000 points

Well, it's gonna be really interesting to see what the markets have to say on Monday. Seems that the first coronavirus death in the US has finally happened.

First coronavirus death in the U.S. happens in Washington state

Health officials in Washington state said on Saturday a coronavirus patient has died, marking the first death in the U.S. from COVID-19, the illness associated with the virus.

The person who died was a man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, and there was no evidence he contracted the virus through travel, health officials said.



And, when you combine it with the fact that the first death was not travel related, rather someone caught it, and they still don't know why. Trump had said that they had it contained and the number of sick people were going down. Guess he hasn't heard of the cases where people caught it who didn't travel anywhere. There were several in CA, and now there are 4 in the Pacific Northwest.

4 new coronavirus cases in Pacific Northwest suggest community spread

The new coronavirus may be spreading in parts of the Pacific Northwest, with California, Oregon, and Washington State reporting Friday that they have diagnosed cases with no travel history or known contact with another case.


Health officials in Santa Clara County reported a case of so-called community spread late Friday afternoon — the second in the northern part of the state in the past few days.


Later on Friday health officials in Oregon reported diagnosing a case of Covid-19 — the disease the virus causes — in a person from Washington County who had neither a history of travel to a country where the virus was circulating nor close contact with a confirmed case.



If this is such a "hoax" as Trump says, then why are people still catching it without traveling anywhere? Sorry, but it's gonna get worse before it gets better.
 
Well, it's gonna be really interesting to see what the markets have to say on Monday. Seems that the first coronavirus death in the US has finally happened.

First coronavirus death in the U.S. happens in Washington state

Health officials in Washington state said on Saturday a coronavirus patient has died, marking the first death in the U.S. from COVID-19, the illness associated with the virus.

The person who died was a man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, and there was no evidence he contracted the virus through travel, health officials said.



And, when you combine it with the fact that the first death was not travel related, rather someone caught it, and they still don't know why. Trump had said that they had it contained and the number of sick people were going down. Guess he hasn't heard of the cases where people caught it who didn't travel anywhere. There were several in CA, and now there are 4 in the Pacific Northwest.

4 new coronavirus cases in Pacific Northwest suggest community spread

The new coronavirus may be spreading in parts of the Pacific Northwest, with California, Oregon, and Washington State reporting Friday that they have diagnosed cases with no travel history or known contact with another case.


Health officials in Santa Clara County reported a case of so-called community spread late Friday afternoon — the second in the northern part of the state in the past few days.


Later on Friday health officials in Oregon reported diagnosing a case of Covid-19 — the disease the virus causes — in a person from Washington County who had neither a history of travel to a country where the virus was circulating nor close contact with a confirmed case.



If this is such a "hoax" as Trump says, then why are people still catching it without traveling anywhere? Sorry, but it's gonna get worse before it gets better.
In hailing the virus when some one coughs certainly can and does happen but there are much more insidious methods of transmission. Here is a couple of examples:

  • An infected person coughs in his handkerchief and puts it in his pocket transferring the virus to his hand. He then opens a door at a restaurant, transferring the versus to the door handle which hundreds of people touch every hour.
  • A person with the virus on their hands sits down at a restaurant, transferring the virus to the menu which will be given to dozens of customers every hour.
  • An infected person working at a sporting event coughs when carrying a large tray of drinks. His droplets fall in the drinks. He sells a dozen drinks to customers who share the drinks resulting in possibly dozens of people being infected.
These are just a few of the ways the virus can spread. The key to preventing the spread is covering the mouth when coughing and not going to work or public places when you are sick. Washing hands and using hand santizers will help keep you from being infected and reduce the spread of virus.

The fact that the virus only lives a few hours outside of the body of the host does reduce the spread and we don't need to worry about transmission in packages, mail, and manufactured goods.
 
Looks like the OP will be popping more bottles of champagne tonight.
It seems Democrats LOVE the virus. As long as it causes a crash ,they love it. Because the New Democrat wants to destroy the USA. Just like in the 60's.
It seems like the Democrats know Trump is not prepared. Trumpettes are too stupid to care.
Democrats just want Gov't control of everything. That is why they want filthy illegals here. Those stupid brutes are used to Gov't control/
The government should be prepared for a pandemic and having things in place wirh what is happening in China & elsewhere.

Trump has no clue & has done nothing.


Investors are bailing not just because of the virus but also they know Trump has not done shit.

Trump is more worried about the stock market than people getting sick.
What a load.
 
The whole "corporations are people" trope is tired lefty bullshit.

They are an entity that can be treated in certain ways as a separate entity from the people working it or for it.

They can't vote, they can't sit on juries, they cant keep and bear arms. They are incorporated to make contracts and legal actions against them viable, and easier, so you don't have to sue every shareholder, or get every shareholder's signature on documents.

Not my point. "Corporations are people" was the tired RIGHTY bullshit used to pass Citizen's United.

No, Citizens United means you can't deny people 1st amendment rights just because they are part of a corporation.
Assfuck Masty thinks corporations are people.

I have news Assfuck Marty, people can donate personally & do not need a corporation to do it.

No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.

Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?
 
No, Citizens United means you can't deny people 1st amendment rights just because they are part of a corporation.
Assfuck Masty thinks corporations are people.

I have news Assfuck Marty, people can donate personally & do not need a corporation to do it.

No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.
I think corporations are not people. People have the right to donate & voice their opinions outside the corporation.

When they put corporations in jail, then we can talk.

What is the actual difference.

Corporation X donates Y. Owner of Corporation X donates Y after taking the money out from X as compensation.

One is a corporation & the other a person.

You argued that denying the corp to make political donation is taking away the right of free speech. But then you just proved it doesn't.

Marty can't keep his lies straight.


I supopiose you will ewant coreporatiuons to vote next.

As I asked in another response, what is the difference between a political donation from a corporation's checking account, and a political donation from one of the corporation's officers checking account?
 
Not my point. "Corporations are people" was the tired RIGHTY bullshit used to pass Citizen's United.

No, Citizens United means you can't deny people 1st amendment rights just because they are part of a corporation.
Assfuck Masty thinks corporations are people.

I have news Assfuck Marty, people can donate personally & do not need a corporation to do it.

No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.

Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.
 
No, Citizens United means you can't deny people 1st amendment rights just because they are part of a corporation.
Assfuck Masty thinks corporations are people.

I have news Assfuck Marty, people can donate personally & do not need a corporation to do it.

No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.

Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.
 
Assfuck Masty thinks corporations are people.

I have news Assfuck Marty, people can donate personally & do not need a corporation to do it.

No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.

Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia
 
No, I think people in corporations don't lose their rights just because they run one.

Morons like you think corporations are the boogeyman yet accept rampant runaway government for some reason.

Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.
 
Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.

Do I think that what corporations did to Love Canal to be evil?

In a word, Yes.

Love Canal - Wikipedia

 
Last edited:
Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.

Do I think that what corporations did to Love Canal to be evil?

In a word, Yes.

Love Canal - Wikipedia

If you read the article they build a contained landfill that was capped, and they actually asked the board buying the land to waive liability, so the board knew what it was buying.

The board built on the land and the methods of construction they used caused the breaches in the containment.
 
THE MARKET IS UP OVER 600 POINTS TODAY--as of an hour ago.

It's got a long way to go, but it's headed in the right direction.
 
THE MARKET IS UP OVER 600 POINTS TODAY--as of an hour ago.

It's got a long way to go, but it's headed in the right direction.
The market was oversold and this is just a reaction. It may last a day or so but it will slow down and build a base before a run at a new high or a continued slide.

There still remains a huge lack of data to base any conclusion as to the virus impact on earnings. Until investors feel more confident, the wild ride will continue.
 
Did someone threaten to take corporate employees' rights away?

Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.
Hence why we need regulations because Marty says Corporations will not do the right thing unless forced to do so.
 
Why is a political donation unacceptable if it comes from a corporate checking account as opposed to an officer in that corporation's checking account?

Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.
Hence why we need regulations because Marty says Corporations will not do the right thing unless forced to do so.

Regulations are one thing, onerous regulations that do nothing than make work for lawyers, or even worse are stealth attempts at banning a given industry or practice is something else.

As an example, reasonable limits on stack discharges for a given power plant, good. Making those limits so onerous as to make it impossible to generate power with that method economically, bad.
 
Because in most cases, the best interests of the corporation is in direct contradiction to the interests of the people. Secondly, the owners of the corporation are already represented as individuals. Giving them a second representation through the corporation gives them double representation, as opposed to non owners.

I just don't see the concern or the difference. I am in support of transparency in political support, but not limits.

And the whole "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE EVUL" Schtick is getting old.

All corporations are not evil. But, it is in the interest of a lead mining company to cheaply dump mine tailings, which is directly against the public interest of protecting the environment.

Tar Creek Superfund site - Wikipedia

it is in their best interest to reduce costs within the law. Assuming they would just dump the tailings knowing the damage it would cause implies you think they are evil.
Hence why we need regulations because Marty says Corporations will not do the right thing unless forced to do so.

Regulations are one thing, onerous regulations that do nothing than make work for lawyers, or even worse are stealth attempts at banning a given industry or practice is something else.

As an example, reasonable limits on stack discharges for a given power plant, good. Making those limits so onerous as to make it impossible to generate power with that method economically, bad.

The petroleum industry fought to keep leaded gas legal for a decade or more, because it was an "onerous" to force the industry to retool refineries. After all, poisoning the air never hurt anybody. The tobacco industry did even worse.
 

Forum List

Back
Top