New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Savageduck on 12 Feb 2010 23:36 On 2010-02-12 19:49:06 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >> news:hl3i1v$egi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:e639n5l1ojhndtjn77g7nu75vhljjuj5n5(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:i2b8n59tp15ch64gtu0gdt2q5l7vv8huip(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> 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. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: C J Campbell on 13 Feb 2010 02:05 On 2010-02-12 16:48:38 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:16:29 -0800, C J Campbell > <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> 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. I doubt it. It would be just one more tax. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: C J Campbell on 13 Feb 2010 02:17 On 2010-02-12 19:47:12 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> 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? I think not. If 200 employees are getting laid off it is because they are costing the company more than they are worth. Either they are making products that no one wants to buy or they not making products at all -- they are just dead wood. I'll bet the last buggy whip manufacturer made great buggy whips -- the finest buggy whips in the world. But you know what? I don't care how good the employees were, if all they knew how to do was make buggy whips then it would be the height of irresponsibility to keep paying them for making something no one was buying. But a CEO who could transform the buggy whip manufacturer into something else that is profitable or, failing that, liquidate the company for a decent price, is worth quite a bit to the owners of the company. Nobody owes you a job if you want to charge more than the job is worth, whether you are a CEO or a guy sweeping the floors. CEOs do not set their own pay; it is set by the shareholders of the company. CEOs do not pay themselves; they are paid by the directors. Are some CEOs overpaid? Of course. Just as there are many other employees that are overpaid. But these people tend not to last. CEOs are like great coaches. They can make a lot of money if they produce a winning team. But don't expect to last more than one season if you don't make the playoffs. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Feb 2010 03:00 C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> 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 >> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing >> products to sell. > >You seriously believe that even a selfish CEO is going to lay off 200 >employees if they are making money for the company? Not only do I believe it, I've seen it. > I think not. If 200 >employees are getting laid off it is because they are costing the >company more than they are worth. Like the CEO? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bill Graham on 13 Feb 2010 03:13
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010021220360571490-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-02-12 19:49:06 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > >> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:hl3i1v$egi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:e639n5l1ojhndtjn77g7nu75vhljjuj5n5(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:i2b8n59tp15ch64gtu0gdt2q5l7vv8huip(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>>>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> 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? |