Active Now

Malizz
Zack
Randy D
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » BIG TECH is too big according to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. She whats to smallify it. Are you pro/con?
RosieG

BIG TECH is too big according to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. She whats to smallify it. Are you pro/con?

 She means Amazon, Facebbook and Google.

What is too big? Is there a problem with their size or is it rather how they operate? Is the problem more one of ETHICS than it is of gargantuan size? Would you try to do something about it or leave it alone? What's the RIGHT thing to do here? I have no idea. Do you?

Posted - March 9, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    How they operate is a matter of their size.  It is impossible to track what they are doing.  

    I just don't know what her plan could possibly be and how she thinks she can win over the big money guys with this proposal.  If she gets too near winning the vote, the big money guys will act and she will lose.   They will put their big money where E's mouth is and they will silence her.  By LYING.  By lining pockets of Lobbyists and anyone else that can sway the vote their way.



    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at March 10, 2019 8:44 AM MDT
      March 9, 2019 7:00 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Well she is smart brave feisty and doggedly determined. I have no idea how she plans to effect these changes. I guess we shall find out. She scares the crap outta little donny d. Very bigly. He knows she is way smarter than he is. That kills him. Good. Knock him down a peg or two or 22. However smart he thinks he is ..he may be 1/100th of that on his best day. Thank you for your reply Sharon! :)
      March 10, 2019 8:46 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    She is boldly going where no one would dare.  And it is going to cost her the entire election.
      March 10, 2019 8:49 AM MDT
    0

  • 6098
    I would like to smallify her.  But I agree that when companies start taking over everything they have become too big but that gets to be their problem and they become susceptible to eager competition providing better service and better products.  Which is the natural way of that being handled.  Government can regulate to a point but should not engage in business.  Which after all represents people's efforts and sweat and hopes and dreams.  I certainly do not hold with those who believe that success must be "evil".  Some of the ways people handle success is not good  which is why there success does not last beyond a generation or so. 
      March 10, 2019 9:31 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    WHY? Have you ever listened to the JOB she is doing for us?  Uncovering the lies and incompetence and deceit in the OVAL?

    Have you?  OF COURSE NOT.  Or else, you would not back the idea that she ever is for anyone else but US.

    NOT like TRUMP.  Did you see her working (ACTUALLY WORKING? THE ONLY PERSON IN CONGRESS THAT ACTUALLY IS WORKING?) to absolutely crush what's his name? THe leader of the health care issues?  He has spent millions on everything BUT health care and she called him out publicly over it on TV.  He had NOTHING to defend himself with because HE DID THIS STUFF.

    Your blood sweat and tears are being funneled to these PIGs in the Administration and THIS JERK IS A PRIME EXAMPLE.

    Just one of many.  If we COULD ONLY get her elected. IF.  But it will never happen because people like you want to believe what you want to believe instead of researching what is real.


    IF YOU DECIDE TO ANSWER ME, OFFICE, I ASK THAT YOU TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THIS VIDEO AND TELL ME IF YOU WANT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS LIARS IN OFFICE RIPPING YOU OFF BLIND OR ELIZABETH WARREN PROTECTING YOUR SAVINGS AND LIFE QUALITY?





    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at March 10, 2019 9:54 AM MDT
      March 10, 2019 9:40 AM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    All presumption.  I don't go along with that holier-than-thou stuff and using the power of the government to beat people over the head.  I know what is good for me and don't care to have anyone tell me what is.  In Massachusetts she gets the "guilt vote" people who feel guilty they are doing well because they are hip to all the suffering around them and they know they can't stop it so they just want the government to do it for them and salve their consciences. Don't want to take responsibility. She got 65% of the vote here last fall and her opponent Geoff Diehl told her publicly if you get elected you will run for pres which she denied to his face.  No kidding.  If she really wanted to uncover lies and deceit and incompetence why doesn't she work in the private sector where she could do some real good?  Instead of politics where you have to pay to play. No don't agree with her enshrining victimhood. If people want to play being victims then fine that may be for them.  I choose not to define myself by my victimhood. 
      March 10, 2019 10:07 AM MDT
    0