Talk:558: 1000 Times - Revision history

42.book.addict at 16:41, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T16:41:56Z

2019-05-15T17:21:28Z

fixed typo

2017-03-03T06:15:57Z

2016-01-05T07:50:37Z

2015-10-25T06:15:50Z

you seem new to this whole wiki thing

2015-10-25T06:15:26Z

2015-10-25T05:07:55Z

2015-01-30T16:54:50Z

2013-11-17T23:39:40Z

2013-11-17T23:34:26Z

Created page with "Most honest: Bailout - 1.7 x 10^11 Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8"

New page

Most honest:

Bailout - 1.7 x 10^11
Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8
 [[User:BruceJohnJennerLawso|BruceJohnJennerLawso]] ([[User talk:BruceJohnJennerLawso|talk]]) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
-:so what WERE the boni for?
+:so what WERE the boni for? [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::For bringing money into the company (from the government) according to those executives' contracts {{unsigned ip|198.41.235.59}}
 A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 :I believe he was more upset about the dishonest reporting. How drastic that .1% are is a matter of debate, but I would argue that the amount of outrage the dishonest figures aim to incite is certainly unwarranted and would not serve any attempt at rational discourse. Randall has also shown a certain aversion to making political comics and commentaries until recently. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 15 May 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk\|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk\|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)		A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk\|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk\|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
−	:I believe he was more upset about the dishonest reporting. How drastic that .1% are is a matter of debate, but I would argue that the amount of outrage the dishonest figures aim to incite is certainly unwarranted and would not serve any attempt at rational discourse. Randall has also shown a certain ~~a ersion~~ to making political comics and commentaries until recently. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61\|162.158.89.61]] 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)	+	:I believe he was more upset about the dishonest reporting. How drastic that .1% are is a matter of debate, but I would argue that the amount of outrage the dishonest figures aim to incite is certainly unwarranted and would not serve any attempt at rational discourse. Randall has also shown a certain aversion to making political comics and commentaries until recently. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61\|162.158.89.61]] 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:15, 3 March 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:

	A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk\|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk\|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)		A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk\|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk\|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
		+	:I believe he was more upset about the dishonest reporting. How drastic that .1% are is a matter of debate, but I would argue that the amount of outrage the dishonest figures aim to incite is certainly unwarranted and would not serve any attempt at rational discourse. Randall has also shown a certain a ersion to making political comics and commentaries until recently. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61\|162.158.89.61]] 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 5 January 2016
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
	::For bringing money into the company (from the government) according to those executives' contracts {{unsigned ip\|198.41.235.59}}		::For bringing money into the company (from the government) according to those executives' contracts {{unsigned ip\|198.41.235.59}}
		+
		+	A bit surprised Randall ignored the still significant figure of 0.1% paid out as bonuses instead of being used to help revitalize the economy. [[User:Flewk\|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk\|talk]]) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 [[User:BruceJohnJennerLawso|BruceJohnJennerLawso]] ([[User talk:BruceJohnJennerLawso|talk]]) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 :so what WERE the boni for?
 [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 30 January 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8		Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8
	[[User:BruceJohnJennerLawso\|BruceJohnJennerLawso]] ([[User talk:BruceJohnJennerLawso\|talk]]) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)		[[User:BruceJohnJennerLawso\|BruceJohnJennerLawso]] ([[User talk:BruceJohnJennerLawso\|talk]]) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
		+	:so what WERE the boni for?
		+
		+	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Most honest:
 Bailout - 1.7 x 10^11
 Bonuses - 1.65 x 10^8