~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~

[a fan]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

[old salt]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.

Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

[a fan]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.

Oh, I read it. Plainly you don't understand what these words mean. It means that SOME non competes are allowed in America.

And you have already agreed with me hat non competes are unfair to workers. Because OF COURSE they are. So....what the F are you arguing about here?

Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.

That's right. The part you don't understand is: If noncompetes are legal, if I'm the US taxpayer and I believe that they were fair in the private sector? I would 100% use them on the military. Why? Because they incentivize military employees to stay on for longer.

But I don't believe in them, and neither do you, so the ONLY discussion point is back to the TrumpJudge, once again, sticking it to working class Americans to the benefit of the ownership class. It doesn't matter if noncompetes are only allowed "sometimes". They're inherently unfair, making it so that workers cannot maximize their labor value in a free market.

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Right. They'd just stop flying. You're a TERRIBLE capitalist. You think the the .gov MUST intervene....and yet at the same time, lash out at me for being a socialist. Yet here you are, advocating for government trained workers to fill commercial positions. You're CHEERING this socialized aviation training. It's hilarious.

if the .gov didn't supply these aviation workers, the free market would step in. But yes, I PREFER to give these fat jobs to ex military. They've more than earned them. It's comical how many times you contradict yourself when it comes to the American economy. You are a card carrying socialist....which is perfectly fine. It's the denial that you are a socialist that is.....boring.

[old salt]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.

Oh, I read it. Plainly you don't understand what these words mean. It means that SOME non competes are allowed in America.

And you have already agreed with me hat non competes are unfair to workers. Because OF COURSE they are. So....what the F are you arguing about here?

Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.

That's right. The part you don't understand is: If noncompetes are legal, if I'm the US taxpayer and I believe that they were fair in the private sector? I would 100% use them on the military. Why? Because they incentivize military employees to stay on for longer.

But I don't believe in them, and neither do you, so the ONLY discussion point is back to the TrumpJudge, once again, sticking it to working class Americans to the benefit of the ownership class. It doesn't matter if noncompetes are only allowed "sometimes". They're inherently unfair, making it so that workers cannot maximize their labor value in a free market.

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Right. They'd just stop flying. You're a TERRIBLE capitalist. You think the the .gov MUST intervene....and yet at the same time, lash out at me for being a socialist. Yet here you are, advocating for government trained workers to fill commercial positions. You're CHEERING this socialized aviation training. It's hilarious.

if the .gov didn't supply these aviation workers, the free market would step in. But yes, I PREFER to give these fat jobs to ex military. They've more than earned them. It's comical how many times you contradict yourself when it comes to the American economy. You are a card carrying socialist....which is perfectly fine. It's the denial that you are a socialist that is.....boring.

That is so dumb. You can't force recruits to stay in the military if you deter them from enlisting with the threat of non-competes.
Recruiting is already difficult enough. For pIlots, the free market has not stepped in & when it has, it has produced an inferior product.
The obligated service payback for pilot training is now twice as long as it was when I got my wings.
The glut of WW-II, Korean, Vietnam & Cold War pilots have now retired. The airlines are scrambling to fill the cockpits with qualified pilots.
Like the rest of the military, in military aviation, it's up or out. Naval Aviators get 2 sea duty squadron tours sandwiched around a shore duty tour. Most are done with operational flying by their early to mid 30's, married w/family, unwilling to continue 9 mos deployments at sea, unable to still pull 6G's & unable to still visually spot a bogey on the horizon. Airlines & commercial aviation are the natural transition. Military aviation helps guarantee the aviation industries a core supply of highly trained pilots & aviation managers, as well as offering an attractive 2nd career prospect to attract the best candidates into military aviation. A non-compete to ban military pilots from commercial aviation would kill both military & commercial aviation. Another of your absurd logic fails.

[old salt]

"Wait until Pres Kamala has FTC Chairperson Lina Khan setting food prices. Your farmer friends will love that.
Wonder where she'll set your booze prices ? It's way too pricey for the common folks to afford."

A statement as stupid and ill-informed as his Orange Prophet. Perfect.

He doesn't care about non-competition agreements; he cares about making a dig at the "DEI Yale Law graduate," who he thinks denied him the vertical monopoly to which he was entitled with Illumina. Venality combined with a little race-baiting. "White Guys for 1952!!!"

I can't wait for Pres Kamala to unleash Lina Khan on the bio-tech sector to start snatching patents.

[a fan]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.

Oh, I read it. Plainly you don't understand what these words mean. It means that SOME non competes are allowed in America.

And you have already agreed with me hat non competes are unfair to workers. Because OF COURSE they are. So....what the F are you arguing about here?

Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.

That's right. The part you don't understand is: If noncompetes are legal, if I'm the US taxpayer and I believe that they were fair in the private sector? I would 100% use them on the military. Why? Because they incentivize military employees to stay on for longer.

But I don't believe in them, and neither do you, so the ONLY discussion point is back to the TrumpJudge, once again, sticking it to working class Americans to the benefit of the ownership class. It doesn't matter if noncompetes are only allowed "sometimes". They're inherently unfair, making it so that workers cannot maximize their labor value in a free market.

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Right. They'd just stop flying. You're a TERRIBLE capitalist. You think the the .gov MUST intervene....and yet at the same time, lash out at me for being a socialist. Yet here you are, advocating for government trained workers to fill commercial positions. You're CHEERING this socialized aviation training. It's hilarious.

if the .gov didn't supply these aviation workers, the free market would step in. But yes, I PREFER to give these fat jobs to ex military. They've more than earned them. It's comical how many times you contradict yourself when it comes to the American economy. You are a card carrying socialist....which is perfectly fine. It's the denial that you are a socialist that is.....boring.

That is so dumb. The free market has not stepped in & when it has, it has produced an inferior product.

Walked right into that one. Many, you're easy.

That's RIGHT, old salt. The Government did a better job than the private market in providing the best aviation employees. Don't look now, but you're a card carrying liberal socialist.

Don't tell your pals that you're in the wrong political party.

A non-compete to ban military pilots from commercial aviation would kill both military & commercial aviation. Another of your absurd logic fails.

Again, this is awesome!!! Making my argument for me, thanks for this.

That's right: non competes are freaking stupid, AND unfair. Take a bow, you just made the argument I made to start this entire conversation.

[PizzaSnake]

“Before you get to sell what we teach you here over at United Airlines, you have to give us six years of your lives, sweepea. A lot of things can happen in six years.”

— Sergeant Foley, Officer and a Gentleman

[old salt]

The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.

That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.

You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.

I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.

...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.

There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.

You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.

You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.

You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.

And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.

You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.

“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.

Oh, I read it. Plainly you don't understand what these words mean. It means that SOME non competes are allowed in America.

And you have already agreed with me hat non competes are unfair to workers. Because OF COURSE they are. So....what the F are you arguing about here?

Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.

That's right. The part you don't understand is: If noncompetes are legal, if I'm the US taxpayer and I believe that they were fair in the private sector? I would 100% use them on the military. Why? Because they incentivize military employees to stay on for longer.

But I don't believe in them, and neither do you, so the ONLY discussion point is back to the TrumpJudge, once again, sticking it to working class Americans to the benefit of the ownership class. It doesn't matter if noncompetes are only allowed "sometimes". They're inherently unfair, making it so that workers cannot maximize their labor value in a free market.

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Right. They'd just stop flying. You're a TERRIBLE capitalist. You think the the .gov MUST intervene....and yet at the same time, lash out at me for being a socialist. Yet here you are, advocating for government trained workers to fill commercial positions. You're CHEERING this socialized aviation training. It's hilarious.

if the .gov didn't supply these aviation workers, the free market would step in. But yes, I PREFER to give these fat jobs to ex military. They've more than earned them. It's comical how many times you contradict yourself when it comes to the American economy. You are a card carrying socialist....which is perfectly fine. It's the denial that you are a socialist that is.....boring.

That is so dumb. The free market has not stepped in & when it has, it has produced an inferior product.

Walked right into that one. Many, you're easy.

That's RIGHT, old salt. The Government did a better job than the private market in providing the best aviation employees. Don't look now, but you're a card carrying liberal socialist.

Don't tell your pals that you're in the wrong political party.

A non-compete to ban military pilots from commercial aviation would kill both military & commercial aviation. Another of your absurd logic fails.

Again, this is awesome!!! Making my argument for me, thanks for this.

That's right: non competes are freaking stupid, AND unfair. Take a bow, you just made the argument I made to start this entire conversation.

You're the ONLY one who suggested that non-competes were a viable option for the military. Nobody else would make such an absurd proposal.

That does not mean there are not occasions when a non-compete is appropriate. I had not trouble signing one in my 2nd career so I would not abscond with proprietary information & clients, even though I had generated the information & recruited the clients while an independent contractor working to help start up that company.

[a fan]

You're the ONLY one who suggested that non-competes were a viable option for the military. Nobody else would make such an absurd proposal.

You still haven't caught on to why I did that? Fabulous.

That does not mean there are not occasions when a non-compete is appropriate. I had not trouble signing one in my 2nd career so I would not abscond with proprietary information & clients, even though I had generated the information & recruited the clients while an independent contractor working to help start up that company.

That's how the free market works, my man. Allowing someone to get whatever wage they can, for whatever company that chose is a foundational concept. Without it? You don't get competition.

You can make the stupid "I have proprietary information" claim all day long. Without free movement of talent and labor? Competition doesn't happen in America, OS.

You REALLY have a fundamental problem understanding how capitalism works, and why competition makes the whole thing go.

Let me help you understand: If we're not worried about companies competing for labor, talent and ideas? Why wouldn't we just offer everyone the same exact wage?

More to the point, why the F wouldn't we simply get rid of the private sector entirely, and have all business be run by the .gov?

Get it now?

[old salt]

You're the ONLY one who suggested that non-competes were a viable option for the military. Nobody else would make such an absurd proposal.

You still haven't caught on to why I did that? Fabulous.

That does not mean there are not occasions when a non-compete is appropriate. I had not trouble signing one in my 2nd career so I would not abscond with proprietary information & clients, even though I had generated the information & recruited the clients while an independent contractor working to help start up that company.

That's how the free market works, my man. Allowing someone to get whatever wage they can, for whatever company that chose is a foundational concept. Without it? You don't get competition.

You can make the stupid "I have proprietary information" claim all day long. Without free movement of talent and labor? Competition doesn't happen in America, OS.

You REALLY have a fundamental problem understanding how capitalism works, and why competition makes the whole thing go.

Let me help you understand: If we're not worried about companies competing for labor, talent and ideas? Why wouldn't we just offer everyone the same exact wage?

More to the point, why the F wouldn't we simply get rid of the private sector entirely, and have all business be run by the .gov?

Get it now?

That's such BS. I grew up in a family business. I oversaw a competitive flight services contract while in the Navy. Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation . The 3 of us who combined our efforts executed non-competes to assure each other that none of us would abscond with the proprietary information we developed & the clients we attracted -- together.

I can't wait to hear your reaction when Pres Kamala unleashes Lina Khan & her FTC to ferret out price gouging in the spirits industry.

[youthathletics]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

[Kismet]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

[youthathletics]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

Nice catch.....the blue check mark got me. I forgot they now have gold checkmarks to confirm orgs.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

Nice catch.....the blue check mark got me. I forgot they now have gold checkmarks to confirm orgs.

But you did manage to spread a little pro-Orange misinformation. So way to go YA!!! Another big day supporting Orange Moron with falsehoods!!!

[youthathletics]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

Nice catch.....the blue check mark got me. I forgot they now have gold checkmarks to confirm orgs.

But you did manage to spread a little pro-Orange misinformation. So way to go YA!!! Another big day supporting Orange Moron with falsehoods!!!

It is not binary, my man. you need to understand logical disjunction like XOR, if you have two False Inputs the result is False...see how that works. Now fix your tie and sit up straight.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

Nice catch.....the blue check mark got me. I forgot they now have gold checkmarks to confirm orgs.

But you did manage to spread a little pro-Orange misinformation. So way to go YA!!! Another big day supporting Orange Moron with falsehoods!!!

It is not binary, my man. you need to understand logical disjunction like XOR, if you have two False Inputs the result is False...see how that works. Now fix your tie and sit up straight.

Not binary? Meaning that your amplification of falsehoods about Harris/Walz does not necessarily help your Orange Prophet? You are just like bubblebathgirl and Benny and Collin and Joey.

[youthathletics]

Fliting with Disaster: https://x.com/PGATUOR/status/1826634924746834130

Maybe the folks in charge of this account could learn how to correctly spell TOUR for starters

Nice catch.....the blue check mark got me. I forgot they now have gold checkmarks to confirm orgs.

But you did manage to spread a little pro-Orange misinformation. So way to go YA!!! Another big day supporting Orange Moron with falsehoods!!!

It is not binary, my man. you need to understand logical disjunction like XOR, if you have two False Inputs the result is False...see how that works. Now fix your tie and sit up straight.

Not binary? Meaning that your amplification of falsehoods about Harris/Walz does not necessarily help your Orange Prophet? You are just like bubblebathgirl and Benny and Collin and Joey.

I see you have learned nothing from the recent post, this implies that you are attempting to mask the ignorance of learning possibility beyond that which you comprehend. I shall leave you to your own struggles.

[MDlaxfan76]

Any thoughts on Harris’ speech last night?

How about Kinzinger’s?

Panetta and the crowd of Dem veterans?

The 5?

Anyone think Pink’s daughter crushed it?

How about the number of times Ronald Reagan was invoked?

[Kismet]

How about the number of times Ronald Reagan was invoked?

Not surprising after the MAGA GOP essentially excommunicated St Ronnie of Reagan for quite some time now. He is just another RINO.

[a fan]

Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation

Every last bit of it working for the .gov. How does this do anything but make my point? All of it....every last bit....in service of socialism.

I don't denigrate socialism. That's YOU. Comically. Hilariously, the biggest socialist here thinks socialism is bad. You're here arguing with me about what you did to put food on the table, and make your community better------when I'm in full 100% support of what you've done with your talents.

The 3 of us who combined our efforts executed non-competes to assure each other that none of us would abscond with the proprietary information we developed & the clients we attracted -- together.

I understand that. You are unable to understand what those noncompetes did both to the labor market, and to American innovation....trying to discuss this concept with you is impossible.

I can't wait to hear your reaction when Pres Kamala unleashes Lina Khan & her FTC to ferret out price gouging in the spirits industry.

Please!!! Pretty Please!!!

Are you so blind that you don't understand that plants that pump out millions of cases of spirts per year have margins that are exponentially higher than mine?

You're too far gone with your magic R to even discuss why guys like you are paying higher prices across all business sectors because of monopolistic practices. Further, you don't care. Go walk your dogs, and leave the management of our economy to the next generation.

You guys did a great job in many places....but the monopolies and absurd gap between rich and poor need fixin'. We just need to get guys who think like you out of the way.