New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: George Kerby on 13 Feb 2010 18:25 On 2/13/10 5:02 PM, in article 4b772f82$0$1608$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/13/10 1:46 PM, in article 4b7701ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray >> Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >> >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >> You need to quit before you embarrass yourself any further. You never have >> even seen a proxy vote form, have you, FishHead Rot?!? > > The usual kerby stupidity and screeching. No substance. The usual crabbing retort from the FishHead. No comprehension. Proving beyond a doubt that you never have own a share of a publicly held business. You would be embarrassed - if you were capable of such a thing.
From: tony cooper on 13 Feb 2010 18:48 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> 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] > >>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> 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? > He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax") with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of advancing. There's more to it than I've outlined above. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: C J Campbell on 13 Feb 2010 19:24 On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>> 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. >> >> 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? What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the financial pages? > >> 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. Sez you. If you would be so much better, why ain't you rich? -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: Savageduck on 13 Feb 2010 19:48 On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4b771f5e$0$22474$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:1OKdnb_9-t7IhOrWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:6dOdnR7OKchgiOrWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-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 > > Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, > "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does > (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, > and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all > slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any > slave driver is to his property. > > In the above example, I think the government's use should fall > somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that > it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. > > So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they > should be. > > My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for > myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the > government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I > don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more > than just breathing. But, to each his own....... Bill, The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The Treasury, or Vice President? If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers. ....and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Peter on 13 Feb 2010 19:55
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:SsmdnVtcl53gturWnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4b771f5e$0$22474$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:1OKdnb_9-t7IhOrWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:6dOdnR7OKchgiOrWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-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 > > Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, > "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does > (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and > we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to > our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is > to his property. > > In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere > less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should > fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. > > So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they > should be. > > My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for > myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government > does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count > living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just > breathing. But, to each his own....... You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20% How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than just breath. Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated. -- Peter |