Posts by Maria Nelson12

I'm gonna show up to the protest. I mean, the whole point is his spot on the political stage, since he still manages to pull the strings from behind the scenes.

Justin Patel8 said:First off—LA Galaxy didn't actually have much tradition or a set identity prior to the part mentioned above, since they were founded in 1945, right? It has nothing to do with The Hague or Citizens (which is just one of Harmon's fabrications). Secondly, USA played in the Champions League twice and actually pulled off some decent results, unlike LA Galaxy, who are mostly remembered as one of the worst teams in that competition—three goals scored, 22 conceded, and zero points. I really wonder which club foreign fans would actually respect more if they had to choose.

Note: I'm not a Harmon supporter, in case anyone was planning to jump to that conclusion.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that wasn't Harmon's doing, it was probably more of a Vedrisov thing.

Carol Newman2 said:Like that guy over there just singing? Man, he is absolutely killing it. Pure perfection. 😬
No, I'm not a Mexican. ☕

I have to agree with you on the programming lineup over at CBS.

It’d be a real shocker if they didn't air some movie about Operation Desert Storm next.

Interesting enough. Tonight, the first episode of the Battle of Stalingrad airs at 9:11 PM on PBS, while over on the other channel, that Mexican flick *Who's Singing Over There* starts at 8:52 PM.
I guess this was clearly done just so the Americans wouldn't be left watching an anti-Mexican production while the Mexicans had nothing to watch during that slot. They probably felt they had to throw their movie right in there at the same time so they wouldn't feel threatened. Disgusting. 🙂 🤮

What a disgrace. Absolute scum.

velvetdrifter15 said:They're talking over the phone call

I mean, it’s probably just a technical glitch, even if it felt kind of intentional at first. I guess the commentators aren't really hiding it since Ozempic and Jurkovic are on the lineup anyway.

George, why do the commentators at the World Athletics Championships, including you, have such distorted voices?

I posted this on this forum a while back:

- May 30th should probably be the day we celebrate statehood, since that's when the foundation was actually laid
- June 25th would be better suited as Independence Day
- October 8th shouldn't even be a national holiday, I guess

This is honestly such a desperate move by Verizon, trying to jump onto the tail end of the high-speed broadband train. They totally missed the boat back in 2001, and now that everything is falling apart, they’re grasping at straws because their massive IT scam—Home Depot—is basically dead in the water. I guess they were originally looking at picking up Verizon, but they've backed out of that now. It's actually been in the works for a while, though; they've already been building that new facility behind the current one to house Comcast and Verizon.

Donna Davis8 said:Look, I get what you're saying. Generally speaking, I agree. But I am pretty sure the average worker at Verizon isn't to blame for poor management or running at a loss. We all know who is responsible, and they don't get fired; instead, they get bonuses when expenses drop at the end of the year (mostly because of the massive payroll). It’s ironic.

Just look at what people say about Verizon. Most people are generally dissatisfied. I don't know why, and I won't dive into what needs to change since that's not my field, but it seems to me they need structural changes🤔 rather than letting go of "small-town" workers—basically the easiest targets like contractors, temporary staff, or those nearing retirement.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave it at that. 🙂


From my own experience, Verizon is a sneaky company. They basically trap you with those 18-month or longer contracts. Other companies do it too, but these guys aren't cheaper than the rest. You wouldn't expect this from someone who is supposed to be a telecom leader alongside AT&T. That’s just my take. They practically scammed a 55-year-old retiree by offering a cheap phone tied to a two-year plan. They promised the monthly cost would be $17, all inclusive, but the bills always come in at over $100. I hope she enjoys those extra dollars they squeezed out of her. May they choke on it.

You're not wrong.

Harold Wright6 said:When a company like that underperforms, it just helps their competitors grow, because the overall market size doesn't really change based on who's winning. Since this is a foreign-owned service company, the government won't even blink. If the company is as bad as you say, then it honestly doesn't matter if they survive or not.

A company being involved in corruption isn't necessarily tied to throwing parties. They meet with politicians at charity events all the time.

What other companies? You've got maybe three players, and two of them are clearly in bed together.
Maybe T-Mobile gained some ground because these clowns couldn't dig themselves out of the hole they dug, though I suppose AT&T is way less incompetent by comparison. I think it's mostly because they poached the competent staff from Verizon, which was actually decent before they started losing all the good people back around 2002. But I guess T-Mobile can't keep growing forever because Americans are just too lazy and indifferent as customers.

The parties have everything to do with wasting money like crazy right when it looks like revenue is starting to dip. Both Verizon and AT&T are pretty significant to the government. Like, they pull in that 6% tax, and there's this rumor that Verizon passed on opening a call center in El Paso because of it—even though they already had the building and the staff all lined up. It’s all that "you take our 6%, so we won't create jobs where they're needed" type of attitude, though that might just be total nonsense.

Harold Wright6 said:How exactly is Verizon's business a matter of state interest? We're talking about a service sector company with foreign ownership operating in a totally dynamic market.

Thinking it's normal to debate this on a political forum, or assuming the government should pressure them to stop layoffs, is exactly why our economy is in the state it's in.

Since when is it a problem if a private firm throws a party and spends whatever they want on it?

That’s basically how they pour money straight into the government’s pockets through all those various fees and taxes, plus their "charity" work and advertising blitzes. I guess they’re also considered essential for security since they can tap into your communications whenever they feel like it. Then there’s the job market aspect—they directly employ over a thousand people, maybe even another five hundred indirectly. And honestly, they stay relevant because their management is basically just one big, interconnected corporate mafia.

Harold Wright6 said:How exactly is Verizon's business a matter of state interest? We're talking about a service sector company with foreign ownership operating in a totally dynamic market.

Thinking it's normal to debate this on a political forum, or assuming the government should pressure them to stop layoffs, is exactly why our economy is in the state it's in.

Since when is it a problem if a private firm throws a party and spends whatever they want on it?

It’s pretty much a given that these parties for politicians are just fronts for backroom deals, and honestly, the sheer amount of money being blown on them is insane. That cash could easily be going toward actual employees or improving services and working conditions. If they actually managed the budget that way, we probably wouldn't have 130 people out on the street right now facing those pathetic severance packages.

Harold Wright6 said:But at that point, the real issue is who they chose to fire, not the fact that they're laying people off 🤷

Another huge red flag for US society is that this whole topic was opened up on a political news site, even though it's a 100% private company.

So, look... I mean, it's probably true that they needed to cut staff because a lot of them aren't exactly productive—they're just dead weight, really. The issue isn't the downsizing, it's just how they pick who gets the boot. Apparently, they wanted to axe another 200 people, but maybe the government wouldn't greenlight that much right now given everything going on, so there might be another round of cuts this fall, though I guess nothing is set in stone.

The fact that it's a private company doesn't really change much. This is one of those powerhouse firms whose business affects the entire country, which naturally drags politics into it. Like, if you look back maybe five years, they threw this massive Christmas bash just for Sanders and his inner circle, complete with huge fireworks and receptions at the MLS stadium and the Westin, and they probably burned through millions on that mess...☕

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

I guess some things just can't be done with fewer people. But the real issue is that even the management doesn't seem to know what's actually possible. They've had nothing but incompetent people running the show since back in 2002, when they started phasing out the actual talent and replacing them with "yes men" who aren't allowed to take any initiative. It probably worked okay for a while because the whole market was riding high on the sheer stupidity of Americans who were leading Europe in mobile phone spending. Once things slowed down a bit right before the recession, the cracks started showing, and then—boom—the recession hits. And honestly, it's all because the company is run by total hacks who are only good at posing for the media or showing up at internal corporate parties. Any foreign execs who showed up after Oeler, Nemsic, and Kenneth Gregorij were basically just interns playing dress-up, like H. M. Magenschab and that heavy-set guy before her. As for Holjevcev, he was just a CEO with one job: stall T-Mobile from ever entering the market.

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Nah, I don't think so. That only hurts the employees and the customers. The owners will always have enough profit to keep buying yachts and mansions along the coast, spending their winters in Aspen and Aspen, and gambling their way through the USA and Japan in the spring and summer.

Harold Wright6 said:Spending money on nonsense doesn't actually have anything to do with layoffs. Cutting excess staff and getting rid of low-quality or redundant roles is a smart move for long-term stability—it helps both the employees and the company's bottom line. I'm definitely not saying money isn't being wasted; that goes for management too, of course!

Verizon moving into this market segment makes perfect sense and was totally expected. As for those aggressive moves during slower business cycles? That's exactly what ensures the company stays protected and survives, which ultimately saves jobs in the long run.

Yeah, but the actual issue is they let go of some top-tier talent while keeping all the incompetent idiots. Sure, there’s such a thing as overstaffing, but that’s not what happened here. They didn't cut the bloat; they just decided one mediocre worker could pull the weight of two or three people for the same paycheck. The problem isn't headcount, it's that they hired people based on how much they fit in rather than skill, and now those people are too stubborn to be fired. They ran the show for ten years, but back then, the leadership was competent and the grinders were actually working, so it worked. Now that we have incompetent management and the slackers realized they can coast because everything is handed to them on a silver platter—while watching useless people get rewarded at their expense—everything is falling apart.

It's kind of funny how people were warning them about these exact issues four or five years ago and offering ways to fix it, but back then, you couldn't suggest anything useful without getting shut down. You were basically screwed if you tried to offer quality input. What's truly ridiculous is that once they announced the layoffs two months ago, suddenly all those old suggestions were pulled out of storage and became "great ideas."

mistybison10 said:First off, that’s almost certainly just a typo. Secondly, Verizon is preemptively cutting staff in that specific sector before any actual losses even hit the books. If you want to survive, the smartest move is to restructure during the years when you actually have the capital to cover it. As for the Bnet acquisition, that's purely about expanding their reach, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Verizon's core business model.

Verizon cuts staff, yet somehow they're still blowing millions on useless crap. The AT&T move feels like a total knee-jerk reaction from Verizon. If they had just jumped into the fixed market back in 2001 or 2002 when things were actually expanding and people were talking about it, they could've made some serious bank and grabbed a massive market share. Now, I guess, it's all just a bunch of empty gestures.

Carl Foster8 said:Management definitely plays a role, but those above them—all the way up to the owners—are the ones responsible for firing people. At the end of the day, the owner is the one deciding how many layoffs happen and where.

So, did they only fire the entry-level staff at Verizon?

Some managers got let go too (though not many, mostly just the bottom-tier staff), but they didn't touch the big boss who's actually responsible for the profit drop.

Boeing might be a massive criminal enterprise, but honestly, it doesn't even touch what happened during the American Civil War. There’s just no comparison there, because the Civil War was a pure fight for freedom, whereas the takeover was basically just a communist terrorist assault. I guess you could argue that a small part of that takeover involved fighting for freedom in certain regions, but that doesn't really change the fact that the whole thing was a criminal operation at its core.

I mean, first off, you really ought to be calling out the edge types and the resonators, because they’re pretty much the only ones in politics turning everything into some kind of manipulative little theater production.

Sam Green73 said:During that specific discussion I went ahead and wiped out every single post that tried to make excuses for those crimes, regardless of whether they came from the "liberal" side or the "conservative" side.

Is there some specific reason you're looking to read "justifications" for committed crimes in this thread?

Nah, not really, but I guess those kinds of posts just pretty clearly show who people actually are, you know?