New DSLR lenses from Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Bruce, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >being a greedy, selfish moneybags.


    To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

    > We are talking about a guy who
    >retired from Microsoft a long time ago to devote his life to
    >humanitarian causes, including the eradication of malaria, building
    >high schools, agricultural development, health care and nutrition,
    >among other things.


    Give me $40,000,000,000 and I'll do the same. I'll even promise to
    give away 99.99% of the money and keep only 0.01% for myself.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 12, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou <> wrote:
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:31:05 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I don't see much evidence that Obama is much of a thinker. Take away the
    >>>teleprompter and he's lost for words.

    >>
    >> Whereas Palin had to write "Hi, I'm Sara Palin" on the palm of her
    >> hand to ensure at least one cogent point in an interview.
    >>
    >> The teleprompter thing is a red herring, though. The use of the
    >> teleprompter has to do with being able to recite a previously prepared
    >> speech without stumbling. The thinking goes into writing the speech
    >> that is prepared and then projected onto the teleprompter.

    >
    >Who writes the speeches? That thinking is left to a speech writer. It's no
    >red herring, the man is lost without it.


    Given that Obama has spoken impromptu on many occasions and
    demonstrated that he is quite capable it is obvious that you're just a
    bitter bigot and a liar

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 12, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:16:29 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> ...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a
    >>> port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs
    >>> to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That
    >>> would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That
    >>> could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless
    >>> transport is given a VAT exemption

    >>
    >>
    >> Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale.
    >> All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including
    >> transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service.
    >>
    >> Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't
    >> happen.

    >
    >It sure happens in the US. We have all kinds of taxes on our taxes,
    >including paying sales tax on items that already have been taxed for
    >their labor, business and occupation, and various excise taxes.



    VAT would put a stop to that.
     
    Bruce, Feb 13, 2010
  4. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't
    >> happen.
    >>

    > It doesn't? Have you ever heard of a place called, "California"?
    >
    > First, you pay a federal income tax. Then you pay a state income tax on
    > the same money you made and just paid a fed. income tax on. Then, you pay
    > an annual house tax, and an annual tax on all your vehicles and boats.
    > Then, when you go to the store and spend what little money you have left
    > over, (assuming that you have any left over) you have to pay a sales tax
    > on everything you buy, including the fast food, or any processed food
    > whatsoever, and anything some state clerk decided is not healthy for you
    > to eat, own, or smoke....:^) And I haven't even mentioned all the
    > licensing fees you might have to pay for your cats, dogs, bicycles and
    > etc.......



    And your comment shows your ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation of
    our tax structure. You also ignore the legitimate social needs that must be
    paid for. Your F--key 'em, let them starve attitude is nothing short of
    selfish arrogance. Since we have had this discussion before, I will probably
    not respond further, so take you best shot.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  5. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b75a7db$0$1628$...
    >C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

    >
    > To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    > moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.
    >



    You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless of
    the size of the corporation. When you open up in the morning and realize
    that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  6. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a
    >>>>>hard
    >>>>>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>least
    >>>>>Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>
    >>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>
    >>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>
    >>>She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>second
    >>>but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her
    >>>in
    >>>an instant over Obama.
    >>>

    >> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>
    >> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >> --
    >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >
    > It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    > between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >


    Palin has no well thought out policy. If I am wrong, please tell me what it
    is.
    BTW I was in Alaska last Summer, passed through Wasilla and could not see
    Russia.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  7. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peter <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>C J Campbell <> wrote:


    >>>You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

    >>
    >> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

    >
    >You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless of
    >the size of the corporation.


    Correct.

    > When you open up in the morning and realize
    >that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >greedy turds, but they are in the minority.


    I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    products to sell.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  8. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >
    >"Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    >> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a
    >>>>>>hard
    >>>>>>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>>least
    >>>>>>Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>
    >>>>She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>>second
    >>>>but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her
    >>>>in
    >>>>an instant over Obama.
    >>>>
    >>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >>> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>>
    >>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >>> --
    >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >>
    >> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    >> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >>

    >That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin
    >would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare, and
    >Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a perfect
    >leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.


    A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
    quite heavily on federal money.

    Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  9. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >
    >"Peter" <> wrote in message
    >news:4b75fc77$0$18773$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't
    >>>> happen.
    >>>>
    >>> It doesn't? Have you ever heard of a place called, "California"?
    >>>
    >>> First, you pay a federal income tax. Then you pay a state income tax on
    >>> the same money you made and just paid a fed. income tax on. Then, you pay
    >>> an annual house tax, and an annual tax on all your vehicles and boats.
    >>> Then, when you go to the store and spend what little money you have left
    >>> over, (assuming that you have any left over) you have to pay a sales tax
    >>> on everything you buy, including the fast food, or any processed food
    >>> whatsoever, and anything some state clerk decided is not healthy for you
    >>> to eat, own, or smoke....:^) And I haven't even mentioned all the
    >>> licensing fees you might have to pay for your cats, dogs, bicycles and
    >>> etc.......

    >>
    >>
    >> And your comment shows your ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation of
    >> our tax structure. You also ignore the legitimate social needs that must
    >> be paid for. Your F--key 'em, let them starve attitude is nothing short of
    >> selfish arrogance. Since we have had this discussion before, I will
    >> probably not respond further, so take you best shot.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >My best shot is very simple. If you add up all the taxes, (as I have done
    >many times in the past) it comes to about 50% of my annual income. This
    >means that I work (and you too) half time for my government, and half time
    >for myself. So, I look at what my government does with half my money. And, I
    >don't like what I see. I see a hell of a lot of stuff that I have no use
    >for.


    Remember that Graham gets a lot of services from the government in the
    form of Medicare and Social security, and he likes a powerful military
    which costs a lot.

    > Apparently, you do not. You like watching your government shoot a
    >dozen astronauts to the moon, (for example) I do not.


    Pah. That's loose change for the federal government. It also hasn't
    happened in the last quarter century.

    > So, I am willing to
    >bitch about it.


    Bush pushed sending astronauts to the moon. Obama killed that.

    But you like Bush and don't like Obama.

    The obvious conclusion is that you're just a political bigot who
    cares only about the "republican" label.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  10. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) said:
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:


    >>>>> You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>>> being a greedy, selfish moneybags.
    >>>>
    >>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.
    >>>
    >>> You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless of
    >>> the size of the corporation.

    >>
    >> Correct.
    >>
    >>> When you open up in the morning and realize
    >>> that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >>> skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >>> should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >>> greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

    >>
    >> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >> products to sell.

    >
    >You seriously believe that even a selfish CEO is going to lay off 200
    >employees if they are making money for the company?


    Not only do I believe it, I've seen it.

    > I think not. If 200
    >employees are getting laid off it is because they are costing the
    >company more than they are worth.


    Like the CEO?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  11. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b7620c0$0$1589$...
    > Peter <> wrote:
    >>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>C J Campbell <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>>being a greedy, selfish moneybags.
    >>>
    >>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

    >>
    >>You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
    >>of
    >>the size of the corporation.

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >> When you open up in the morning and realize
    >>that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >>skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >>should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >>greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

    >
    > I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    > they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    > typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    > If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    > $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    > products to sell.


    Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first. In a public
    company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
    owners. To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    that the workers are the lifeblood of the company. In the example you gave,
    we really don't know if the employee was a slacker, or redundant. I don't
    know if you have ever had to let someone go. I have, and will tell you it's
    not an easy thing to do. But, you seem to think that a company is some sort
    of magic fountain that simply produces money to allow workers to show up and
    get paid, regardless of their contribution to the company, or lack thereof.
    A good CEO is paid because he produces value to the company. If he is not
    adequately paid, he goes elsewhere. If he does not produce value to the
    company, he goes elsewhere, for a different reason.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  12. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b762132$0$1589$...
    > Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >>
    >>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    >>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a
    >>>>>>>hard
    >>>>>>>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>>>least
    >>>>>>>Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>>
    >>>>>She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>>>second
    >>>>>but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her
    >>>>>in
    >>>>>an instant over Obama.
    >>>>>
    >>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >>>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >>>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >>>> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>>>
    >>>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >>>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >>>> --
    >>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>
    >>> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    >>> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >>>

    >>That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin
    >>would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare,
    >>and
    >>Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a perfect
    >>leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.

    >
    > A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
    > quite heavily on federal money.
    >
    > Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.



    We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  13. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010021220360571490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-02-12 19:49:06 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >
    >> Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    >>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make
    >>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>> hard
    >>>>>>>> decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>>>> least
    >>>>>>>> Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>>>> second
    >>>>>> but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take
    >>>>>> her
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> an instant over Obama.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >>>>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >>>>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >>>>> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >>>>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>
    >>>> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    >>>> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >>>>
    >>> That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin
    >>> would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare,
    >>> and
    >>> Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a
    >>> perfect
    >>> leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.

    >>
    >> A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
    >> quite heavily on federal money.
    >>
    >> Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.

    >
    > Well, we have identified at least 2, maybe 3 in this thread.
    >



    I would settle for 2,000 nationwide. Sadly, there are many who take oratory
    over substance

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  14. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peter <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>>C J Campbell <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>>>being a greedy, selfish moneybags.
    >>>>
    >>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.
    >>>
    >>>You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
    >>>of
    >>>the size of the corporation.

    >>
    >> Correct.
    >>
    >>> When you open up in the morning and realize
    >>>that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >>>skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >>>should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >>>greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

    >>
    >> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >> products to sell.

    >
    >Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.


    LOL! Is that what they tell you?

    > In a public
    >company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
    >owners.


    ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?

    When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

    > To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.


    If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    years later and then repeat the process again.

    Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  15. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >
    >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >news:2010021220360571490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2010-02-12 19:49:06 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >>
    >>> Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    >>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make
    >>>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>>> hard
    >>>>>>>>> decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>>>>> least
    >>>>>>>>> Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>>>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>>>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>>>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>>>>> second
    >>>>>>> but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take
    >>>>>>> her
    >>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>> an instant over Obama.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >>>>>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >>>>>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >>>>>> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >>>>>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    >>>>> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >>>>>
    >>>> That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin
    >>>> would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare,
    >>>> and
    >>>> Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a
    >>>> perfect
    >>>> leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.
    >>>
    >>> A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
    >>> quite heavily on federal money.
    >>>
    >>> Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.

    >>
    >> Well, we have identified at least 2, maybe 3 in this thread.
    >>

    >Ah.....The latest definition of, "idiot". - Anyone who votes for a
    >president who was the former governor of a state that got a lot of money
    >from the federal government.........Huh?


    Nobody wrote that and lying only makes you look like a bigot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  16. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peter <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >news:4b762132$0$1589$...
    >> Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:hl3i1v$egi$-september.org...
    >>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a
    >>>>>>>>hard
    >>>>>>>>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
    >>>>>>>>least
    >>>>>>>>Palin has experience running something.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
    >>>>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
    >>>>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
    >>>>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
    >>>>>>second
    >>>>>>but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her
    >>>>>>in
    >>>>>>an instant over Obama.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
    >>>>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
    >>>>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
    >>>>> support of the opposing party's members.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not
    >>>>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>
    >>>> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
    >>>> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
    >>>>
    >>>That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin
    >>>would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare,
    >>>and
    >>>Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a perfect
    >>>leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.

    >>
    >> A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
    >> quite heavily on federal money.
    >>
    >> Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.

    >
    >We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity.


    He votes for his cult and not for humanity or his pocketbook.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  17. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b7701ae$0$1601$...
    > Peter <> wrote:
    >>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message



    >>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >>> products to sell.


    How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
    rhe SEC Regulations.


    >>
    >>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

    >
    > LOL! Is that what they tell you?


    They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
    reality of business before you open your mouth.

    >
    >> In a public
    >>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
    >>the
    >>owners.

    >
    > ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
    > that?


    And just how do you think a director becomes a director. He/she is elected
    by vot of the shareholders. It's becomming obvious that you have never owned
    stock in a public company. It is also obvous that you never have run a
    successful business, or if you have, you are just blowing smoke.

    >
    > When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    > When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >


    Read this and learn.
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp



    >> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.

    >
    > If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    > spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    > years later and then repeat the process again.


    My statements are based upon personal observation and experience. What are
    your statements based upon?

    >
    > Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.
    >



    More than you would admit. Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
    misinformation.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  18. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...


    >>
    >> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >> humanity.

    >
    > Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
    > pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
    > doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.


    Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
    Please clarify.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  19. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >>>> humanity.
    >>>
    >>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
    >>> pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
    >>> doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

    >>
    >> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
    >> Please clarify.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still
    > not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
    > oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. -
    > We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
    > heading to 60% and above.



    So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should only
    pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society as a
    whole.

    Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why
    don't you fill in the blanks.

    Military: = ?
    Education = ?
    Domestic security protection = ?
    Road maintenance = ?
    Court system = ?
    Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

    Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the government
    helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

    If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for them,
    you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 13, 2010
  20. C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:


    [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
    long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

    >> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>> C J Campbell <> wrote:

    >> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......


    He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
    about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
    County and the city of Bellevue).

    >>He wouldn't spend any
    >> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
    >> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
    >> regressive tax system.....


    ???
    What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
    and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 13, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Sandy Bloom, Ph.D.

    Nikon ED Lenses versus G Lenses

    Sandy Bloom, Ph.D., Jan 24, 2006, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    10,531
    Jeremy Nixon
    Jan 31, 2006
  2. wayne
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,080
    wayne
    Jan 25, 2006
  3. jeremy
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,441
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    647
    Böwser
    Sep 23, 2008
  5. Bruce
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,330
    Böwser
    Sep 23, 2008
  6. Guest
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,477
    David J Taylor
    Mar 10, 2005
  7. Rob
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    378
    MInister of Information
    Sep 26, 2006
  8. The Henchman

    New DSLR user and need advice on Zoom Lenses...

    The Henchman, Dec 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    525
    ASAAR
    Jan 2, 2009
Loading...