and I know it's a Telco, but work with me here...they will run, not walk, away from this deal. Yahoo had very little to offer even before the security debacle. At this point I would value Yahoo as something akin to a few practice jerseys and a bucket of pucks. In other words, practically nothing.
I don't really care either way but the thought of that devious bitch of a CEO making off with millions after hiding the security hackings from their customers, not to mention Verizon, makes me ill.
Google decides to donate some money to the less fortunate. On the face of it, it seems like a noble thing to do. Except that the decision was made without any input from said employee, who may or may not have been onboard with that decision. I used to work for a place that every Christmas they would send you a link to a website where you could get various items, paid for by the company, as a gift. You also had the option of having the company donate money instead of the gift. Seems to me that would have been a better way for Google to play it. Let the employee decide.
American news outlets helped spread fake propoganda about Republican candidate Trump. Chiefly among them the Washington Post and New York Times. Remember the story about the flight attendant that was supposedly fondled by Trump? Yeah...until she mentioned lifting the armrest in 1st class....except seats in 1st class don't have a movable armrest....and she claimed to be flying on a plane that was not in that airlines fleet - then or ever.
In other words, the whole story was made up and once it was discovered was never retracted by either "news" outlet.
As far as I'm concerned the Washington Post has absolutely no credibility when it comes to news reporting. They are on par with the National Enquirer.
For print journalism The Wall St. Journal is about the only one left that seems unbiased to me. Yes, they are pro business but politically they seem somewhat neutral. TV is a lot more difficult. These days it seems to be either far left (CNN, MSNBC) or far right (FOX, One America News). O'Reilly on FOX seems to be pretty fair most of the time and the same for Scott Pelley on CBS. They tend to be a little more from the Walter Cronkite mold.
At least with O'Reilly he states that he is an opinion journalist and not a news guy. Others like Blitzer and Stephanopolos claim to be news guys but they are really opinion guys. And if you don't watch closely it's very difficult to tell which is which.
Radio is dominated by right wingers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
So there you have it - if you listen to/watch/read all of the above and always consider the source then therein the truth will lie:-)
Isn't this the same group that assured all the voters that the election results could not possibly be manipulated when Trump suggest just that, prior to the election? And the same group that, given Hilary's higher popular vote numbers, are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College?
I think that Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN crew and still grumpy that Hillary lost. Well get over it Wolfie - you got your ass handed to you. Despite your one sided reporting and thinly veiled rooting for Hillary you lost.
CNN and MSNBC and others are just pissed off that they have been exposed as surrogates of the Democrat party. I think that a lot of people have long suspected that is the case but now it is in full view. If you want to hear Democrat cheerleaders then go to CNN or MSNBC. If you want to hear Republican cheerleaders then go to FOX. If you want the actual truth, you know that thing that used to be called "news", then you are going to have to go to a variety of web sites and other outlets and try to filter out all the political BS. That's what the world has come to.
This "State Sponsored Hackers" thing is now the new "Dog ate my homework" lie. I guess it's better than, you know, telling the truth. But I suppose if she ever had to testify over it then it would be a bunch of take the 5th and "I don't recall".
Yahoo gives lots of money to the Democrat party. My prediction? This will be a complete farce with nothing of consequence coming from it. But Franken, et al will get tons of mileage from it by appearing to go after "big business". Nothing to see here. Thanks for playing.
wasn't that one of the reasons given for forming the TSA in the first place? Better efficiency? The TSA was going to replace those inefficient, untrained, low paid knuckleheads with....inefficient, untrained HIGH paid government knuckleheads. All the while, they would create another bureaucratic tar pit with a multi-billion dollar annual budget.
Folks - this is why our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools are going to shit. It is not because there is not enough money. It is because of how the money gets spent. There is zero accountability. The TSA is yet another perfect example of this. It is a failed experiment. Were this a private company it would be abandoned, with a follow up study and lessons learned. In government they just throw more (of our) money at it.
This is why whenever the government wants to launch yet another massive program (be it Obamacare or what have you) I am flatly against it. Why? Because they have shown time and time again that they are incapable of managing anything of scale without it turning into a bottomless pit.
Cook is saying that Apple will repatriate profits...next year. As in after Obama is out of office. Clearly, Apple has not been able to negotiate an agreement with the Obama administration that they can live with. By saying next year Cook is basically saying that he has given up on this administration. Trump has already come out publicly against the EU decision.
Interestingly the Obama administration is also against the EU decision. Why? I can think of two possible reasons:
1) They would rather get their own grubby hands on the money...or.... 2) If Apple ends up paying the EU then that money will pass through as a US tax credit for Apple. Dollar for dollar. Which means that basically the US taxpayer will end up being on the hook for all those billions of dollars.
What is interesting to note is that this whole thing is fault of the federal government. They wrote the laws that Apple is using to their advantage. Government accepted the bribes...err...political campaign contributions that allowed business to influence the laws to their liking.
"Yeah, Hilary doesn't measure up as a progressive. But she's still progress." - Progress? You mean like the last 50 years of progressive programs that have gotten the underclass of America absolutely nowhere? The kind of progress that has gutted once proud cities like Detroit and Baltimore? The kind of progress that has created a permanent underclass completely dependent on government handouts and devoid of any self worth? That kind of progress?
I hate to be the one to break the news but those program are not working. They may be well meaning but they are ineffective. For some people, appearing to care about the poor is all that matters. Actually doing something about it....well, that's someone else's problem.
Hillary doesn't measure up as a progressive? Buddy, she doesn't even measure up as a human being. She is a lying sack of shit. She is completely and thoroughly corrupt. She conspired to sandbag Bernie Sanders, who had more popular support than her by the way. I wouldn't vote her dog catcher, never mind president.
And before you think I'm some sort of Trump surrogate - don't bother. I'm not voting for him either. And I'm not anti-women either. I'd love to see a female president. But not Hillary. Not in a million years.
Hillary is clearly a lying, deceptive, corrupt, sociopath dirt bag. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican I just don't see how it can be viewed any other way. Trump is just a buffoon. A carnival barker. An embarrassment.
Neither one of them deserves my vote. So what to do? I suppose I could just stay home and not bother to vote but that seems unpatriotic to me. People fought and died for my right to vote so the least I can do is exercise that right. So I'm voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning but that is not the point. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those two shit sandwiches so at least I can cast a vote for Johnson with a clear conscience.
and to the dismay (and I'm sure, disgust) of liberals everywhere Rush Limbaugh called it once again: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
This whole thing was in the can for Hillary right from the get go. It just goes to show that liberals will stop at absolutely nothing in the pursuit of political power. And spare me the "sore loser" speech. It's one thing to try and screw Republicans over - they screwed Bernie and his followers. People in their own party.
The current Democrat strategy is to try and discredit Trump. There is no mention of Clinton achievements - because there are none. Everything she has touched has been a colossal fuck up. Including, but not limited to, the death of four Americans in Libya on her watch as Secretary of State. Followed by a cover up that she continues to lie about.
All the while, her and Bill are operating a sham of a "charity" that only donates 10 cents out of every dollar it takes in. Funded in large part by corrupt foreign governments that treat women and gays like shit. While maintaining, with a straight face, that they are the party that actually cares about women and gays.
I, for one, can't wait for the next round of WikiLeaks emails. You can bet there there will be plenty more evidence of lying and corruption in the Clinton camp. So keep up the Trump attack ads and various head fakes. Nobody is buying it.
Oracle is all in on this cloud stuff. They were late to the cloud game and are now playing catch up to Salesforce and Workday. So now Oracle (and SAP as well) are snapping up cloud based products. It's the flavor of the month.
What Oracle has figured out is that it is actually more profitable to sell SAAS software than traditional on premise software. With on premise software you have to support lots of different databases and middle ware and OS's. That makes your development and testing exponentially more difficult and expensive. With SAAS you only have to support one stack - yours.
Customers give up a lot of control for the convenience of SAAS based products. And the dirty little secret is that SAAS actually costs you more money in the long run. This is why Oracle is so eager to jump on the cloud bandwagon. It's not about doing what their customers want - it's about making more money. On a conference call about 3 months ago Ellison came right out and said that cloud is more profitable.
Think of it like buying vs leasing a car. Leasing gives you convenience but every study I have read says that buying the car is cheaper in the long run. Eventually customers will catch on to this and cloud will vaporize. But until then there is money to be made and made it shall be.
No threat level pink? This is an insult to all women...and people that are sympathetic to women...and people that are men that really want to be women.
And no threat level rainbow? Oh the humanity!!! Once again we have left our LGBT brothers and sisters in the lurch.
And code black is an imminent threat? Sounds vaguely racist.
No...this just won't do. Back to the drawing board Barack.
After 7 years of basically treating Brits like dirt Obama has the audacity to go to the UK and lobby the people of Great Britain to stay in the EU. Did he really think they were going to listen to him? Barack Hussein O would rather spend time with a Cuban dictator taking in a baseball game than spending time with arguably Americas strongest historical ally. Then he comes out with these petulant "back of the line" veiled threats after the verdict did not go his way.
Coupled with the SOCUS smack down on the immigration executive order....not a good week for Obama.
"I've never observed anyone commenting on the cost of a man's clothes while giving a speech. Typically, I see media comments on women's clothes but not men's. This looks an awful lot like sexism to me; if you want to convince me otherwise, please let me know how much Bernie's and Donald's clothes cost - or for that matter Obama's or Bush's." - You'd have to ask Trump how much his suits cost but I would imagine in the neighborhood of $2K or so. But you are completely missing the point. Doesn't $12K - for a fucking jacket - seem just a little excessive to you? Especially for someone like Clinton that claims to care so much for the down trodden. She is a hypocrite plain and simple. By the way, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. Nice strawman attempt though.
"How much did he personally donate?" - Again, you'd have to ask The Donald but I'd bet that it is well into the millions of dollars of his own cash. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals talk about donating money. They talk about YOU giving YOUR money. They donate their time but not their money. Conservatives give money. Lots of it and often with little or no fanfare. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Chaney - two people that I'm sure you just despise - give millions and millions of dollars to charities. Their own money. And they do it knowing that people like you are going to criticize them anyway. The difference is that they give money not for recognition but out of a sense of civic duty.
Clinton, on the other hand, sets up some phony charitable organization that is nothing more than a slush fund for influence peddlers and corrupt politicians. How is it that this fund has collected millions of dollars and yet has distributed so little to the poor it claims to be helping?
"What do you consider particularly dubious about Hillary's and Bill's money?" - Seriously? Ok. How about the fact that Bill's speech fees skyrocket right around the time that Hillary just happens to be Secretary of State? How is it that Hillary is getting paid millions for a twenty minute speech to Wall St. firms? Does she have some deep financial insight? Or maybe it's just more influence peddling. Even Bernie is now suggesting this. How is it that corporate donations to their foundation just happen to coincide with the awarding of lucrative government contracts?
I will agree with you on one thing though - lots of fortunes have been made in a dubious fashion. I'm not suggesting that Trump is some kind of boy scout. He's a hard nosed businessman. But comparing the Trump University case to what Hillary is being investigated for is a bit of a stretch. Trump is a civil case. If he loses has has to pay some money. Hillary is being charged with actions that could land her in jail. Were it anyone else they would already be in jail.
You're missing the point. First of all, I'm not a Sanders supporter. He's a socialist and my political views don't lean that way. The point I was trying to make was that Sanders, despite the fact that he has virtually no chance of winning the democratic nomination, still has tremendous support. Traditionally the democrats have done a really good job of getting behind the nominee but this time I just don't see it - not yet at least. I think that speaks to the fact that Clinton is simply not a strong candidate. Yes, she has the delegates but she does not have anywhere near the fervent following that Sanders has. Or Trump has for that matter.
Trump and Sanders, despite having diametrically opposed political views, are alike in one very important way. They inspire people. Clinton simply lacks the ability to inspire people at the same level as the other two do. Aside from that she has the FBI investigation looming as well as a lot of questions about the Clinton foundation and her ties to Wall Street money. She's a flawed candidate and the longer Sanders sticks around the more pronounced it becomes.
So here is Hillary Clinton having a speech last night after essentially securing the Democratic nomination. She touched on most of the typical democratic talking points...equality for all, helping the working class get a fair shot, etc. This is while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06...
If this isn't the height of arrogance I don't know what is. That jacket is worth more than the yearly salaries of some of her supporters. Not to mention that many of the people on her campaign are unpaid volunteers. At least when these phony celebrities show up on humanitarian missions in some of the poorest parts of the world they at least have the humility to leave the Rolex at home.
This is the same party that was criticizing Trump for allegedly lying about how much money he raised for Veterans groups (he claimed 6 million, it was actually 5.6 million. By the time it's all said and done, it will be over 6 million). Emperor Hillary has donated a grand total of $75,000 to Veterans groups - over the past 8 years. This is from a woman with a net worth that far exceeds $100,000,000, much of it in dubious fashion. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
I wonder how many of her supporters are made up of the following:
1) People that support her solely based on the fact that she is a woman, putting aside past and current scandals and suitability for office questions. 2) People that simply hate Trump, for whatever reason.
What is striking to me is the popularity that Bernie Sanders still enjoys. I watched his speech last night in California and I'm telling you his supporters are worked up and they love this guy. I've read polls where up to 25% of Sanders supporters will not support or vote for Hillary. Some of them will even vote for Trump. That has to be alarming to the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Sanders vow to hang in to the bitter end.
I would say that the Emperor has no clothes but evidently she does...expensive ones at that.
What GE has discovered is that annual raises are permanent. Once you give someone a 5% raise that rate of pay carries on forever (or as long as they are an employee at least). And the next raise compounds on the last one. So if you have a good year this year and a poor one next year the company is still compensating you in year two (as a result of the pay raise in year one) as if you had two good years.
A bonus, on the other hand, only lasts for this year. The base pay does not change. Each year is a blank slate.
The other thing is that salary reviews are always thought of in an upward trend. Any decrease in salary, or no increase, is seen as a punitive measure or even an insult.
So clearly GE has a financial incentive to do away with annual raises. The question then becomes....what will it be replaced by? If, as some suggest, it will be replaced by other non-monetary benefits (more time off, flexible work schedules, etc.) that might be welcome by some. To me it seems more likely that this is a further progression towards the temporary employee. The first step was to do away with pensions. Next was the offshoring trend. Now the trend is moving towards employment based on a fixed duration, or contract based employment. Workers have predictably responded by changing jobs more often.
In my own case, it seemed like the best way to get a raise was to change employers.
"That's not true at all. I'm an accountant and audits absolutely can and generally should investigate whether the records they review are factual and evidence based. In fact an auditor is supposed to look for evidence of fraud or mismanagement when doing a financial audit. If an accounting firm is not doing this when auditing the books for a large company then they are not doing their job properly." - Yes exactly right. An auditor is supposed to look for those sorts of irregularities. Otherwise what is the point of having an audit? Big companies can and will bend the rules if they are allowed to get away with it. I guess I just question the independence of some of the audits, given the cozy relationships that can exist.
And here is the dirty little secret about the accounting firms. All of them have a consulting practice to implement Oracle's ERP products. These firms (E&Y, Accenture, Deloitte) bring business to Oracle because companies will hire them to recommend an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning - fancy software for HR and Finance that every big company uses) software. The choice usually comes down to Oracle, SAP or Workday.
So these very same accounting firms that get paid to recommend one product or the other are also auditing those firms. I'm not suggesting it should be illegal but it is rather, shall we say, cozy.
Is it Oracle, for allegedly inflating their sales numbers? Or is it the accounting firms that audit the books and sign off on it? I have no horse in the race, just an honest question.
Slashdot Mirror
and I know it's a Telco, but work with me here...they will run, not walk, away from this deal. Yahoo had very little to offer even before the security debacle. At this point I would value Yahoo as something akin to a few practice jerseys and a bucket of pucks. In other words, practically nothing.
I don't really care either way but the thought of that devious bitch of a CEO making off with millions after hiding the security hackings from their customers, not to mention Verizon, makes me ill.
Google decides to donate some money to the less fortunate. On the face of it, it seems like a noble thing to do. Except that the decision was made without any input from said employee, who may or may not have been onboard with that decision. I used to work for a place that every Christmas they would send you a link to a website where you could get various items, paid for by the company, as a gift. You also had the option of having the company donate money instead of the gift. Seems to me that would have been a better way for Google to play it. Let the employee decide.
American news outlets helped spread fake propoganda about Republican candidate Trump. Chiefly among them the Washington Post and New York Times. Remember the story about the flight attendant that was supposedly fondled by Trump? Yeah...until she mentioned lifting the armrest in 1st class....except seats in 1st class don't have a movable armrest....and she claimed to be flying on a plane that was not in that airlines fleet - then or ever.
In other words, the whole story was made up and once it was discovered was never retracted by either "news" outlet.
As far as I'm concerned the Washington Post has absolutely no credibility when it comes to news reporting. They are on par with the National Enquirer.
For print journalism The Wall St. Journal is about the only one left that seems unbiased to me. Yes, they are pro business but politically they seem somewhat neutral. TV is a lot more difficult. These days it seems to be either far left (CNN, MSNBC) or far right (FOX, One America News). O'Reilly on FOX seems to be pretty fair most of the time and the same for Scott Pelley on CBS. They tend to be a little more from the Walter Cronkite mold.
At least with O'Reilly he states that he is an opinion journalist and not a news guy. Others like Blitzer and Stephanopolos claim to be news guys but they are really opinion guys. And if you don't watch closely it's very difficult to tell which is which.
Radio is dominated by right wingers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
So there you have it - if you listen to/watch/read all of the above and always consider the source then therein the truth will lie :-)
Isn't this the same group that assured all the voters that the election results could not possibly be manipulated when Trump suggest just that, prior to the election? And the same group that, given Hilary's higher popular vote numbers, are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College?
I think that Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN crew and still grumpy that Hillary lost. Well get over it Wolfie - you got your ass handed to you. Despite your one sided reporting and thinly veiled rooting for Hillary you lost.
CNN and MSNBC and others are just pissed off that they have been exposed as surrogates of the Democrat party. I think that a lot of people have long suspected that is the case but now it is in full view. If you want to hear Democrat cheerleaders then go to CNN or MSNBC. If you want to hear Republican cheerleaders then go to FOX. If you want the actual truth, you know that thing that used to be called "news", then you are going to have to go to a variety of web sites and other outlets and try to filter out all the political BS. That's what the world has come to.
that way if Trump wins there is no evidence left to prosecute. The mounting list of crimes is just astounding.
This "State Sponsored Hackers" thing is now the new "Dog ate my homework" lie. I guess it's better than, you know, telling the truth. But I suppose if she ever had to testify over it then it would be a bunch of take the 5th and "I don't recall".
Yahoo gives lots of money to the Democrat party. My prediction? This will be a complete farce with nothing of consequence coming from it. But Franken, et al will get tons of mileage from it by appearing to go after "big business". Nothing to see here. Thanks for playing.
wasn't that one of the reasons given for forming the TSA in the first place? Better efficiency? The TSA was going to replace those inefficient, untrained, low paid knuckleheads with....inefficient, untrained HIGH paid government knuckleheads. All the while, they would create another bureaucratic tar pit with a multi-billion dollar annual budget.
Folks - this is why our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools are going to shit. It is not because there is not enough money. It is because of how the money gets spent. There is zero accountability. The TSA is yet another perfect example of this. It is a failed experiment. Were this a private company it would be abandoned, with a follow up study and lessons learned. In government they just throw more (of our) money at it.
This is why whenever the government wants to launch yet another massive program (be it Obamacare or what have you) I am flatly against it. Why? Because they have shown time and time again that they are incapable of managing anything of scale without it turning into a bottomless pit.
Cook is saying that Apple will repatriate profits...next year. As in after Obama is out of office. Clearly, Apple has not been able to negotiate an agreement with the Obama administration that they can live with. By saying next year Cook is basically saying that he has given up on this administration. Trump has already come out publicly against the EU decision.
Interestingly the Obama administration is also against the EU decision. Why? I can think of two possible reasons:
1) They would rather get their own grubby hands on the money...or....
2) If Apple ends up paying the EU then that money will pass through as a US tax credit for Apple. Dollar for dollar. Which means that basically the US taxpayer will end up being on the hook for all those billions of dollars.
What is interesting to note is that this whole thing is fault of the federal government. They wrote the laws that Apple is using to their advantage. Government accepted the bribes...err...political campaign contributions that allowed business to influence the laws to their liking.
"Yeah, Hilary doesn't measure up as a progressive. But she's still progress." - Progress? You mean like the last 50 years of progressive programs that have gotten the underclass of America absolutely nowhere? The kind of progress that has gutted once proud cities like Detroit and Baltimore? The kind of progress that has created a permanent underclass completely dependent on government handouts and devoid of any self worth? That kind of progress?
I hate to be the one to break the news but those program are not working. They may be well meaning but they are ineffective. For some people, appearing to care about the poor is all that matters. Actually doing something about it....well, that's someone else's problem.
Hillary doesn't measure up as a progressive? Buddy, she doesn't even measure up as a human being. She is a lying sack of shit. She is completely and thoroughly corrupt. She conspired to sandbag Bernie Sanders, who had more popular support than her by the way. I wouldn't vote her dog catcher, never mind president.
And before you think I'm some sort of Trump surrogate - don't bother. I'm not voting for him either. And I'm not anti-women either. I'd love to see a female president. But not Hillary. Not in a million years.
Hillary is clearly a lying, deceptive, corrupt, sociopath dirt bag. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican I just don't see how it can be viewed any other way. Trump is just a buffoon. A carnival barker. An embarrassment.
Neither one of them deserves my vote. So what to do? I suppose I could just stay home and not bother to vote but that seems unpatriotic to me. People fought and died for my right to vote so the least I can do is exercise that right. So I'm voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning but that is not the point. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those two shit sandwiches so at least I can cast a vote for Johnson with a clear conscience.
the monthly patch includes Windows 10 - whether you want it or not?
and to the dismay (and I'm sure, disgust) of liberals everywhere Rush Limbaugh called it once again: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
This whole thing was in the can for Hillary right from the get go. It just goes to show that liberals will stop at absolutely nothing in the pursuit of political power. And spare me the "sore loser" speech. It's one thing to try and screw Republicans over - they screwed Bernie and his followers. People in their own party.
The current Democrat strategy is to try and discredit Trump. There is no mention of Clinton achievements - because there are none. Everything she has touched has been a colossal fuck up. Including, but not limited to, the death of four Americans in Libya on her watch as Secretary of State. Followed by a cover up that she continues to lie about.
All the while, her and Bill are operating a sham of a "charity" that only donates 10 cents out of every dollar it takes in. Funded in large part by corrupt foreign governments that treat women and gays like shit. While maintaining, with a straight face, that they are the party that actually cares about women and gays.
I, for one, can't wait for the next round of WikiLeaks emails. You can bet there there will be plenty more evidence of lying and corruption in the Clinton camp. So keep up the Trump attack ads and various head fakes. Nobody is buying it.
Oracle is all in on this cloud stuff. They were late to the cloud game and are now playing catch up to Salesforce and Workday. So now Oracle (and SAP as well) are snapping up cloud based products. It's the flavor of the month.
What Oracle has figured out is that it is actually more profitable to sell SAAS software than traditional on premise software. With on premise software you have to support lots of different databases and middle ware and OS's. That makes your development and testing exponentially more difficult and expensive. With SAAS you only have to support one stack - yours.
Customers give up a lot of control for the convenience of SAAS based products. And the dirty little secret is that SAAS actually costs you more money in the long run. This is why Oracle is so eager to jump on the cloud bandwagon. It's not about doing what their customers want - it's about making more money. On a conference call about 3 months ago Ellison came right out and said that cloud is more profitable.
Think of it like buying vs leasing a car. Leasing gives you convenience but every study I have read says that buying the car is cheaper in the long run. Eventually customers will catch on to this and cloud will vaporize. But until then there is money to be made and made it shall be.
No threat level pink? This is an insult to all women...and people that are sympathetic to women...and people that are men that really want to be women.
And no threat level rainbow? Oh the humanity!!! Once again we have left our LGBT brothers and sisters in the lurch.
And code black is an imminent threat? Sounds vaguely racist.
No...this just won't do. Back to the drawing board Barack.
After 7 years of basically treating Brits like dirt Obama has the audacity to go to the UK and lobby the people of Great Britain to stay in the EU. Did he really think they were going to listen to him? Barack Hussein O would rather spend time with a Cuban dictator taking in a baseball game than spending time with arguably Americas strongest historical ally. Then he comes out with these petulant "back of the line" veiled threats after the verdict did not go his way.
Coupled with the SOCUS smack down on the immigration executive order....not a good week for Obama.
Yes, well done. Honestly, talking about Hillary and corruption is like shooting fish in a barrel.
"I've never observed anyone commenting on the cost of a man's clothes while giving a speech. Typically, I see media comments on women's clothes but not men's. This looks an awful lot like sexism to me; if you want to convince me otherwise, please let me know how much Bernie's and Donald's clothes cost - or for that matter Obama's or Bush's." - You'd have to ask Trump how much his suits cost but I would imagine in the neighborhood of $2K or so. But you are completely missing the point. Doesn't $12K - for a fucking jacket - seem just a little excessive to you? Especially for someone like Clinton that claims to care so much for the down trodden. She is a hypocrite plain and simple. By the way, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. Nice strawman attempt though.
"How much did he personally donate?" - Again, you'd have to ask The Donald but I'd bet that it is well into the millions of dollars of his own cash. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals talk about donating money. They talk about YOU giving YOUR money. They donate their time but not their money. Conservatives give money. Lots of it and often with little or no fanfare. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Chaney - two people that I'm sure you just despise - give millions and millions of dollars to charities. Their own money. And they do it knowing that people like you are going to criticize them anyway. The difference is that they give money not for recognition but out of a sense of civic duty.
Clinton, on the other hand, sets up some phony charitable organization that is nothing more than a slush fund for influence peddlers and corrupt politicians. How is it that this fund has collected millions of dollars and yet has distributed so little to the poor it claims to be helping?
"What do you consider particularly dubious about Hillary's and Bill's money?" - Seriously? Ok. How about the fact that Bill's speech fees skyrocket right around the time that Hillary just happens to be Secretary of State? How is it that Hillary is getting paid millions for a twenty minute speech to Wall St. firms? Does she have some deep financial insight? Or maybe it's just more influence peddling. Even Bernie is now suggesting this. How is it that corporate donations to their foundation just happen to coincide with the awarding of lucrative government contracts?
I will agree with you on one thing though - lots of fortunes have been made in a dubious fashion. I'm not suggesting that Trump is some kind of boy scout. He's a hard nosed businessman. But comparing the Trump University case to what Hillary is being investigated for is a bit of a stretch. Trump is a civil case. If he loses has has to pay some money. Hillary is being charged with actions that could land her in jail. Were it anyone else they would already be in jail.
You're missing the point. First of all, I'm not a Sanders supporter. He's a socialist and my political views don't lean that way. The point I was trying to make was that Sanders, despite the fact that he has virtually no chance of winning the democratic nomination, still has tremendous support. Traditionally the democrats have done a really good job of getting behind the nominee but this time I just don't see it - not yet at least. I think that speaks to the fact that Clinton is simply not a strong candidate. Yes, she has the delegates but she does not have anywhere near the fervent following that Sanders has. Or Trump has for that matter.
Trump and Sanders, despite having diametrically opposed political views, are alike in one very important way. They inspire people. Clinton simply lacks the ability to inspire people at the same level as the other two do. Aside from that she has the FBI investigation looming as well as a lot of questions about the Clinton foundation and her ties to Wall Street money. She's a flawed candidate and the longer Sanders sticks around the more pronounced it becomes.
So here is Hillary Clinton having a speech last night after essentially securing the Democratic nomination. She touched on most of the typical democratic talking points...equality for all, helping the working class get a fair shot, etc. This is while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06...
If this isn't the height of arrogance I don't know what is. That jacket is worth more than the yearly salaries of some of her supporters. Not to mention that many of the people on her campaign are unpaid volunteers. At least when these phony celebrities show up on humanitarian missions in some of the poorest parts of the world they at least have the humility to leave the Rolex at home.
This is the same party that was criticizing Trump for allegedly lying about how much money he raised for Veterans groups (he claimed 6 million, it was actually 5.6 million. By the time it's all said and done, it will be over 6 million). Emperor Hillary has donated a grand total of $75,000 to Veterans groups - over the past 8 years. This is from a woman with a net worth that far exceeds $100,000,000, much of it in dubious fashion. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
I wonder how many of her supporters are made up of the following:
1) People that support her solely based on the fact that she is a woman, putting aside past and current scandals and suitability for office questions.
2) People that simply hate Trump, for whatever reason.
What is striking to me is the popularity that Bernie Sanders still enjoys. I watched his speech last night in California and I'm telling you his supporters are worked up and they love this guy. I've read polls where up to 25% of Sanders supporters will not support or vote for Hillary. Some of them will even vote for Trump. That has to be alarming to the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Sanders vow to hang in to the bitter end.
I would say that the Emperor has no clothes but evidently she does...expensive ones at that.
What GE has discovered is that annual raises are permanent. Once you give someone a 5% raise that rate of pay carries on forever (or as long as they are an employee at least). And the next raise compounds on the last one. So if you have a good year this year and a poor one next year the company is still compensating you in year two (as a result of the pay raise in year one) as if you had two good years.
A bonus, on the other hand, only lasts for this year. The base pay does not change. Each year is a blank slate.
The other thing is that salary reviews are always thought of in an upward trend. Any decrease in salary, or no increase, is seen as a punitive measure or even an insult.
So clearly GE has a financial incentive to do away with annual raises. The question then becomes....what will it be replaced by? If, as some suggest, it will be replaced by other non-monetary benefits (more time off, flexible work schedules, etc.) that might be welcome by some. To me it seems more likely that this is a further progression towards the temporary employee. The first step was to do away with pensions. Next was the offshoring trend. Now the trend is moving towards employment based on a fixed duration, or contract based employment. Workers have predictably responded by changing jobs more often.
In my own case, it seemed like the best way to get a raise was to change employers.
"That's not true at all. I'm an accountant and audits absolutely can and generally should investigate whether the records they review are factual and evidence based. In fact an auditor is supposed to look for evidence of fraud or mismanagement when doing a financial audit. If an accounting firm is not doing this when auditing the books for a large company then they are not doing their job properly." - Yes exactly right. An auditor is supposed to look for those sorts of irregularities. Otherwise what is the point of having an audit? Big companies can and will bend the rules if they are allowed to get away with it. I guess I just question the independence of some of the audits, given the cozy relationships that can exist.
And here is the dirty little secret about the accounting firms. All of them have a consulting practice to implement Oracle's ERP products. These firms (E&Y, Accenture, Deloitte) bring business to Oracle because companies will hire them to recommend an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning - fancy software for HR and Finance that every big company uses) software. The choice usually comes down to Oracle, SAP or Workday.
So these very same accounting firms that get paid to recommend one product or the other are also auditing those firms. I'm not suggesting it should be illegal but it is rather, shall we say, cozy.
Is it Oracle, for allegedly inflating their sales numbers? Or is it the accounting firms that audit the books and sign off on it? I have no horse in the race, just an honest question.