Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've been over it. Well, some of us have. You ran away from me saying the media blow up stories for advertising revenue on their websites.My mistake; you said "escalation".Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?
Damn, you're an idiot.
I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.
If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.
The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.
We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.
Goodness, you sure do like to change the subject when you're been called out.My mistake; you said "escalation".Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?
Damn, you're an idiot.
I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
I'd ask you if you think the whole thing would have happened if the "responsible and mature" adult hadn't invaded a minor's personal space with unknowable intentions, but we both know you're not ever going to honestly answer the question.
There are all kinds of weirdos in Washington DC. Nate Phillips and the Black Congressional Israelites aren't the only oddballs, they just happened to be the ones hanging around the Lincoln Memorial while the children were waiting on their bus back to Kentucky.
The fault is with the media in making a big deal about it and literally crucifying the southern boys.
Thoughtcriminals must be punished.Goodness, you sure do like to change the subject when you're been called out.My mistake; you said "escalation".Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?
Damn, you're an idiot.
I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
I'd ask you if you think the whole thing would have happened if the "responsible and mature" adult hadn't invaded a minor's personal space with unknowable intentions, but we both know you're not ever going to honestly answer the question.
There are all kinds of weirdos in Washington DC. Nate Phillips and the Black Congressional Israelites aren't the only oddballs, they just happened to be the ones hanging around the Lincoln Memorial while the children were waiting on their bus back to Kentucky.
The fault is with the media in making a big deal about it and literally crucifying the southern boys.
We've been over it. Well, some of us have. You ran away from me saying the media blow up stories for advertising revenue on their websites.My mistake; you said "escalation".I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.
If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.
The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.
We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.
The media have agendas to push. Just because you agree with the leftist one doesn't mean it's not there.
It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.Dear Diary:Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.1. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you lying 4 years ago didn't affect reality then, and it doesn't affect reality now.
Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.
I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.
Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.
2. People like you are why Trump won to begin with. You insult the people you need to support you, then can't believe they don't support you.
I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.
(/offtopic)
Are you jealous of his success?
And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.
But you're just too damn stupid.
I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.
Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.
Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".
The really funny part?
You believe your own bullshit.
I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
.... literally crucifying the southern boys.
It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.Dear Diary:Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.Sorry, I don't recall "lying 4 years ago". What I do recall is pointing out that Rump, until the inauguration, has literally never held a job in his life, never taken on responsibility, never had the experience of filling out an application, sitting through an interview, waiting to find out if he'd been selected, knowing that he might not, and if he was, facing an indefinite future where he'd have to meet somebody else's expectations whether he felt like it that day or not, knowing that if he did not meet those expectations he could be replaced and have to start all over. You know, like you did, like I did, like everybody who hasn't had everything just handed to him for nothing, did. In fact he's bent over backward to avoid every kind of responsibility, from bankruptcies to destroying the USFL to failing to acknowledge he was wrong about the Central Park Five to even parenting. An endless torrent of "didn't happen" and "I licensed my name, I wasn't in charge". He can't even admit he said "Tim Apple". Incapable of taking responsibility.
I then pointed out the wisdom, or lack thereof, in putting such an irresponsible subject into what is arguably the most responsible job in the world.
Yeah I remember that pretty well. And yet, here you are just now finding out. Whattaya gonna do, I tried.
I don't "need" Rump to support me. I need him to fuck off to Antarctica or somewhere, although that's a mean thing to do to penguins. And Rump certainly doesn't support me -- I'm a thinker. He loves the poorly educated, and of course he does. Much more malleable.
(/offtopic)
Are you jealous of his success?
And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.
But you're just too damn stupid.
I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.
Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.
Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".
The really funny part?
You believe your own bullshit.
I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
They might. So do CNN, MSNBC, and all the others news organizations with websites. Hell, the NYT is behind a paywall now.We've been over it. Well, some of us have. You ran away from me saying the media blow up stories for advertising revenue on their websites.My mistake; you said "escalation".
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.
If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.
The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.
We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.
The media have agendas to push. Just because you agree with the leftist one doesn't mean it's not there.
Actually knowing how commercial media works tells us all we need to know, starting with what isn't media at all, Nosebook and Tweeter. Think they might see a teeensy-weensy bit of profit from heavy traffic?
Goodness, you sure do like to change the subject when you're been called out.My mistake; you said "escalation".Which one approached the other? You tried to float the ridiculous idea that a smirk could be provocation -- but a stranger getting in your face in a public place isn't?I don't know. Nor does it matter. There's nothing in the physical communication about "approach".
Nor is this germane to the topic, which is did (whatever) media source defame the kid, and if so, where is the evidence.
Damn, you're an idiot.
I don't believe I said anything about 'provocation'. Got a quote?
Post 165, where you continue to ignore the adult initiating the incident because you were told it's all the minor's fault.
"Actually there's a strong case to be made that smirking DOES escalate the situation."
He wasn't smirking. He was smiling uncomfortably because there was a crazy adult in his face and the kid had no way of knowing what the crazy adult's intentions were.
But you just make sure you don't blame the adult for initiating the event, because you were told it's the minor's fault, and you're not bright enough to question your programming.
Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
I'd ask you if you think the whole thing would have happened if the "responsible and mature" adult hadn't invaded a minor's personal space with unknowable intentions, but we both know you're not ever going to honestly answer the question.
OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.Dear Diary:Why do you say you didn't lie 4 years ago and then tell the same lies you told 4 years ago? You stamping your feet and pouting doesn't make it true.
Are you jealous of his success?
And at least try to pay attention, you moron. I said you need the support of conservatives so they vote for the candidates you prefer.
But you're just too damn stupid.
I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.
Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.
Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".
The really funny part?
You believe your own bullshit.
I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
They might. So do CNN, MSNBC, and all the others news organizations with websites. Hell, the NYT is behind a paywall now.We've been over it. Well, some of us have. You ran away from me saying the media blow up stories for advertising revenue on their websites.Actually, and feel free to go ahead and check me on this, I don't think I attributed "fault" to anybody. I'm not sure there's an actual event for anyone to be AT "fault" over. Or one that was "initiated". I thought the whole point of endlessly long video accounts was to show it was a complex setting involving multiple parties.
The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.
If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.
The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.
We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.
The media have agendas to push. Just because you agree with the leftist one doesn't mean it's not there.
Actually knowing how commercial media works tells us all we need to know, starting with what isn't media at all, Nosebook and Tweeter. Think they might see a teeensy-weensy bit of profit from heavy traffic?
And you thought you had a point. LOL!
OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.Dear Diary:I'm not aware of any "lies" either time. Far as I know I've repeated the same thing now that I said then. That being that Rump has never held a job. In the four intervening years I've heard nothing to challenge that. So yeah it does strike me as bizzaro to thrust a septuagenarian who's never had a job or position of responsibility into the most responsible job in the world.
Now I guess you could take issue with the POTUS being characterized as the most responsible job in the world. Go ahead.
Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".
The really funny part?
You believe your own bullshit.
I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
If you're saying CNN and MSNBC are as legitimate news outlets as Facebook at Twitter -- you'd be right.They might. So do CNN, MSNBC, and all the others news organizations with websites. Hell, the NYT is behind a paywall now.We've been over it. Well, some of us have. You ran away from me saying the media blow up stories for advertising revenue on their websites.The only reason why it was a news story at all was that the Media was looking to discourage other young people from getting involved in civic affairs like the boys from Kentucky were.
If they were in DC for a Black Power March wearing Obama gear, it wouldn't have been a story, even if they would committed violence.
The media's hope was to punish the kids for wearing patriotic headgear at a demonstration for life. All the children really were doing was waiting for their ride back to their old Kentucky homes.
We've been over this ground before too --- "the media", whatever we mean by that, gets no benefit whatsoever from "discouraging" or "punishing" anybody for anything. The media gets its benefit from the advertising it runs, and it maximizes that advertising by running emotional bait-hook stories like this. ***THAT*** is why it's a story at all. Period.
The media have agendas to push. Just because you agree with the leftist one doesn't mean it's not there.
Actually knowing how commercial media works tells us all we need to know, starting with what isn't media at all, Nosebook and Tweeter. Think they might see a teeensy-weensy bit of profit from heavy traffic?
And you thought you had a point. LOL!
That IS the point. Thank you for finally coming around and snorting it.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.Dear Diary:
Today I learned owning multiple businesses and making multi-million-dollar real estate deals isn't a "real job" and has "never had any responsibility".
The really funny part?
You believe your own bullshit.
I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.I thought you learned that earlier in the thread.
Tell the class Davey Wavey ---- who did Rump "apply" to? His father? How do you suppose the "job interview" went? Who were the other "candidates"? What was his "salary"? You know, when he was "hired"? Where did he apply that he wasn't hired?
Hey, the invitation is W I D E O P E N to find something that would dispute it. Been open for four years. It's not closing now.
Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
ATTENTION, USMB:Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!It's funny how you think you can dictate what a real job is. Trump's signed far more paychecks than you ever have.
Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
STILL not seeing any answers to the questions above.
That's OK take your time. This is prolly much more challenging that pronouns.
Hell I've been waiting ten months for any evidence as regards the topic, what's a few more days.
Attention DumbassesATTENTION, USMB:Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!Actually a job is when you RECEIVE a paycheck. Thanks for playin'.
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
STILL not seeing any answers to the questions above.
That's OK take your time. This is prolly much more challenging that pronouns.
Hell I've been waiting ten months for any evidence as regards the topic, what's a few more days.
According to Pogo, self-employed people don't have real jobs.
I know. He's a dumbass.
Oh, so by your own definition, you don't have a real job. Like you claim Trump has never had, because he's always been self-employed.Attention DumbassesATTENTION, USMB:Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.OMG YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!
You don't get to define words, Skippy. Are you saying Trump never got paid by his corporations?
Are you really saying something that stupid? Because, dood...that is really stupid.
hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
STILL not seeing any answers to the questions above.
That's OK take your time. This is prolly much more challenging that pronouns.
Hell I've been waiting ten months for any evidence as regards the topic, what's a few more days.
According to Pogo, self-employed people don't have real jobs.
I know. He's a dumbass.
Pogo is self-employed, Has been for some 35 years. Unlike dumbasses, Pogo knows that the self-employed still have to meet the expectations of their client or customer. And if the self-employed do not, they are no longer employed.
In closing, "Duh".
Oh, so by your own definition, you don't have a real job. Like you claim Trump has never had, because he's always been self-employed.Attention DumbassesATTENTION, USMB:Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.hmmm ....nnnnnnnot seeing any answers to the above.
STILL not seeing any answers to the questions above.
That's OK take your time. This is prolly much more challenging that pronouns.
Hell I've been waiting ten months for any evidence as regards the topic, what's a few more days.
According to Pogo, self-employed people don't have real jobs.
I know. He's a dumbass.
Pogo is self-employed, Has been for some 35 years. Unlike dumbasses, Pogo knows that the self-employed still have to meet the expectations of their client or customer. And if the self-employed do not, they are no longer employed.
In closing, "Duh".
Or is the definition different for you?
You're pathetic.
That's right. Because when a rich guy signs a deal to build a hotel, that hotel just appears overnight. No people are hired to build the hotel. No concrete finishers, no steelworkers, no electricians, no plumbers, no glaziers, no finish carpenters, no HVAC technicians, no carpet layers, nobody. Nobody is ever employed when a rich guy signs a deal to build a hotel. Hundreds of craftspeople, architects, and engineers sit at home and do nothing.Oh, so by your own definition, you don't have a real job. Like you claim Trump has never had, because he's always been self-employed.Attention DumbassesATTENTION, USMB:Your unwillingness to acknowledge that you're wrong is your problem.
STILL not seeing any answers to the questions above.
That's OK take your time. This is prolly much more challenging that pronouns.
Hell I've been waiting ten months for any evidence as regards the topic, what's a few more days.
According to Pogo, self-employed people don't have real jobs.
I know. He's a dumbass.
Pogo is self-employed, Has been for some 35 years. Unlike dumbasses, Pogo knows that the self-employed still have to meet the expectations of their client or customer. And if the self-employed do not, they are no longer employed.
In closing, "Duh".
Or is the definition different for you?
You're pathetic.
I have a ton of real jobs. Every time I take a new assignment. And every time I do, I have expectations to meet. And I know throughout that if I don't meet them, that stream of jobs and/or that client, may discontinue, and somebody else will get that gig. If I were dealing in products rather than services, my wares would have to meet the expectations of my customers, and if they didn't, then I wouldn't have the customers. They would buy somewhere else.
That's a position Rump has never been in. Until right now.
