“Free" offered by for-profit companies must be approached warily for obvious reasons. Free is not without costs. Free has hidden charges, expenses. Free requires you to read the fine print, where buried on page 37, you learn free is very expensive. (2018)
Do you doubt this truism, obvious but overlooked by so many in their rush to pay less? Do you for an instant believe that large for-profit companies price their services at “free” because they are kind-hearted and generous and only have your best interests at heart?
Perhaps most damning at all, removing any barrier to trading tends to encourage, well, more trading. An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that even when “free,” more trading tends to be very, very expensive.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At one point deep int he past, both parties believed all of the the noise about deficits being disastrous. The past 40 years have taught us that obsession was misplaced and the underlying belief is bullshit.
Lindell told Axios, "I want Dominion to put up their lawsuit because we have 100% evidence that China and other countries used their machines to steal the election."
The insurrection was MUCH uglier than it looked. We are learning more about:
-Plans for grabbing Electoral College votes
-Participants with Police/Military background
-Taliban style videotape confessions / executions of Congress members
The FBI and the New York Police Department passed information to the Capitol Police about the possibility of violence during the Jan. 6 protests against the ratification of the presidential election
"Competing crises are slamming the USPS just days before Christmas, imperiling delivery of millions of packages, as the agency contends with spiking coronavirus cases in its workforce, unprecedented volumes of e-commerce orders + continuing fallout from cost-cutting program"
As a reminder, the entire USPS is the creation of Congress:
PINK SLIME: I'm fascinated by the idea that upcoming civil lawsuits by 2 private companies might rein in the most extreme tendencies of OANN & Fox News.
How? Legal liability that peddling "False, reckless & irresponsible" slander has created.
"Last week, his lawyer sent scathing letters to the Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN demanding that they immediately, forcefully clear his company’s name — and that they retain documents for a planned defamation lawsuit. He has, legal experts say, an unusually strong case."
2/
The occupant of the Office of the President is exempt from slander laws, but not the rest of the crew.