Ok, then what's the point of complaining about a few executive salaries?
Because your mask slips when you give a free pass to incompetent management, while laying all the blame on the union that accepted cut after cut to their pay and benefits.
The people that ran the company into the ground were.. the people who did the actual work every day. Or, more precisely, the union that represented them.
Riiiight. That's why the union accepted concession after concession, while management kept increasing their own pay. I know you fascists hate workers, but it helps your credibility if you aren't being a total moron at the same time.
As an example, Netflix and Google both have seemingly reasonable stances on internet openness (at least in the USA).
Other than Google acting like a subsidiary of the NSA, maybe. But Netflix is reasonable through the force of competition - if they were able to drive cable companies out of business while buying up HBO, AMC, etc, their service and prices would eventually begin to suck as well.
Either it is collusion, or they have a legitimate gripe that the government is ignoring. Unlike most of the comments here, I tend towards the latter. Telecom in most of the EU isn't like in the U.S. They have lots of competition.
If there was lots of competition, they wouldn't be making this demand in the first place, as any company that started throttling content from other providers would lose marketshare and go out of business. Which would mean there isn't enough competition to enforce good behavior on their part.
No one who intends on having a shootout with a couple of cops is going to tell them he's armed. And it's not like it would be the first time cops have ordered someone to produce ID, then shoot them for reaching for their ID.
He didn't listen to me. Idiot. Do it right or do it till you fix it. Oh, was that what you wanted to know? Next time, try a forthright question instead.
Who are you calling an idiot, dumbfuck? Or were you too stupid to read where I quoted the demand for a 2/3 vote on leaving, as a part of my response?
But no, they didn't listen to me on that either. I'd have done it differently as well. But sadly, I lack any boxes bigger on the inside, so I can do naught to change it.
Then take it up with Cameron....idiot.
If you want a continuing referendum for 2/3rds requirement all eligible voters till we get an answer though, it seems reasonable.
A 2/3 vote to leave would be reasonable - if a 2/3 vote had been required to join the EU. It wasn't, so it's not.
The prior commenter's text was nonsense - no one was demanding to buy cars that were secret polluters. As for jingoist, that word doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Well, it's a waste of money to conduct a vote for a non-binding referendum, but ok, I'm cool with that, I can put up with it.
Take it up with Cameron, it's his brainchild. But that, like the rest of your post, is a non-reqponse to demanding Leave obtain a supermajority vote to leave the EU, when a supermajority vote wasn't required to join it or stay in.
Wow, posters tonight are really spectacularly dumb.
Well, you could take a break from posting. Every little bit helps....case in point:
In case you hadn't noticed, the current Conservative administration was elected with 36.9% of the vote
Same as the conservatives in Canada under Harper: had a solid majority of seats despite most of the population voting against their party. However, highlighting one of the failures of "representative democracy" doesn't do much to promote your thesis that those who wanted a Brexit should have relied on it.
the Tories would have had to put forward a manifesto, which would have entailed some level of scrutiny of their Brexit plan, which would have been absolutely fucking marvellous, because it would have ensured there was some kind of fucking plan rather than this shitshow we're currently enduring.
Take it up with Cameron. Who, as prime minister, isn't doing much to boost your argument that the Leave camp should have relied on electoral politics, either.
The pound would not have dropped like a rock, NI would not be sliding toward a unified Ireland, Scotland would not be heading for secession, at least one of the two major parties would have kept their leader, etc etc.
With that one correction, that's a list of pluses, not minuses. A devalued pound helps the manufacturing base the UK has left after 30 years of Tories trying to drown it in a bathtub, as well as tourism.
I wasn't proposing this alternative to make it easier for Remain to win, you almighty cockwomble, I was proposing it because a Parliamentary democracy happens to be a less shite way of ensuring workable policy emerges than a plebiscite.
That's your elitism talking again. Besides, your precious representative democracy can get to work out details of this divorce now that it's a thing.
Apparently it is, since you failed to do it in an effective manner, or for that matter, demonstrate any real cognizance of what I said.
Can't justify the unjustifiable.
For example, even this referendum did not detail the mechanism or the price of leaving, so it's kinda vague from the start. Do you consider that acceptable? I don't.
Then take it up with the person who proposed it - Cameron. But the mechanism for leaving is a separate issue from whether or not they should leave, and on which a majority has spoken.
Can't have "majority rules for me, supermajority for thee".
Why? Is there a reason that we can't?
This isn't hard either: because otherwise you're stacking the deck in plain sight to suit your preferences. You can't tell one side that they have to get 50%, and the other side they have to get 60% (or 70%, whatever) with a straight face without playing Calvinball.
People can change what standards they find acceptable.
Oooookay then. So if the Remain faction gets what they want, a second referendum, you'd have no problem with the Leave people insisting they need 60% to stay, when only 50% was required to Leave? If so, you'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be consistent.
So why can't people demand what they want from Parliament?
Because a public referendum is an infinitely superior choice for issues like this, as opposed to trusting an elite few who represent monied interests first and the people a very distant second.
Says the Apple Hateboi who's way too impressed with his own pedantry.
Anybody who thinks their 'payment' to start a 2 year contract is the price of the phone is dumb.
You're dumb. When he's talking about the $200 cost of the phone, he's talking about how much it costs him. Personally. To walk out of the store with that phone. If the difference in price for him for a contract without a phone, and a contract bundled with a phone, is $200.....that means.....drum roll.....the phone cost him $200.
The "but but that phone is subsidized" canard only affects how much the phone costs Sprint, not creimer.
Any time they opened their mouths and fear-mongering came out about how leaving would result in economic armageddon. That Leave was dominated by racists - and again, it's not like there weren't in in Remain, either. Just as the victims of their imperialism in Africa and and the Middle East.
By.....counting the votes and noting the majority? Sounds like hand waving.
No, by having it in the first place.
Having a democratic vote is.....undemocratic. I assume this line of thought is a work in progress?
This isn't hard. If joining the EU didn't require a supermajority, then neither should leaving. Can't have "majority rules for me, supermajority for thee".
Before the British complain about the supposedly undemocratic EU, they should clean their own house and get rid of the House of Lords, who's members are not elected but appointed.
Obvious false dichotomy is obvious. And lame, as you could keep on tacking on ad hoc preconditions forever - first get rid of the House of Lords, but then you should ditch the monarchy before leaving the EU. And then make reparations for the Iraq war before leaving the EU, because reasons.
The UK by itself is a weaker entity than when it was a part of the EU. To think otherwise is delusional.
Your delusion. The UK is one of the largest economies in Europe - if the continent is willing to keep buying gas from Russia, they aren't going to cut off their noses (and access to a huge market) in a fit of pique. And of course a completely sovereign is going to have more control over negotiations that one voice out of 30 - to suggest otherwise is just being obtuse.
Except opinions can change. And from the news it looks like a lot of british citizens changed their minds the day after the vote
Nah, that's the transparent propaganda from the establishment media - which some people are taking credulously, for some reason. So they paraded around some morons who didn't know what the vote was about - whoop de freaking do. You could also go to any city in America, and if you ask enough people, find someone who's shocked that America elected a black president.
when the leave leaders fessed up that all their promises were lies.
As opposed to the lies from Remain? Plenty of racists to be found there, too.
A sane way of Brexiting would have been for a party to have proposed a specific Brexit approach (e.g. Norway-style) as part of its manifesto, for it to have won an election on that basis, for it to have debated and won the arguments for an Act of Parliament setting its negotiating powers in both Houses, and then for it to negotiate on that basis. Then there would have been the opportunity for some considered scrutiny and improvement of the approach.
You mean, go through a herculean effort to rally 75% of the populace to get 50.00001% of elected officials to agree with the majority. That's not "sane", that's taking your elitism and wrapping it in the veneer of representative democracy.
Are you? You do know that equivalent Fandroid phones cost the same and are also subsidized, yes? Or is this one of those things thats only an issue when Apple is involved?
What was your monthly charge and plan? What was the price difference between your plan and one without a subsidised phone?
With Sprint? Most likely nothing. Thus making his phone $200, unless he wanted out of his contract.
This is meaningless no matter what. VAG is getting raked over the coals for selling cars that people wanted.
Wait, what? If you were caught cheating on a test in high school, would your parents have been impressed by saying, "hey, these were the grades you wanted?" You might wanna back up and start over here, because so far you've got a word salad.
Slashdot Mirror
Because your mask slips when you give a free pass to incompetent management, while laying all the blame on the union that accepted cut after cut to their pay and benefits.
Riiiight. That's why the union accepted concession after concession, while management kept increasing their own pay. I know you fascists hate workers, but it helps your credibility if you aren't being a total moron at the same time.
Ah, the robber baron's definition of "ownership". And this, kids, is why socialism is needed - to counteract this elitism and greed.
Other than Google acting like a subsidiary of the NSA, maybe. But Netflix is reasonable through the force of competition - if they were able to drive cable companies out of business while buying up HBO, AMC, etc, their service and prices would eventually begin to suck as well.
If there was lots of competition, they wouldn't be making this demand in the first place, as any company that started throttling content from other providers would lose marketshare and go out of business. Which would mean there isn't enough competition to enforce good behavior on their part.
No one who intends on having a shootout with a couple of cops is going to tell them he's armed. And it's not like it would be the first time cops have ordered someone to produce ID, then shoot them for reaching for their ID.
Or...maybe pull your head out. How many armed robbers take along 4yo girls in the backseat?
If he "pulled a gun" the cops would be telling he pulled his gun. The cops shot an innocent man for no reason.
Morans.
Who are you calling an idiot, dumbfuck? Or were you too stupid to read where I quoted the demand for a 2/3 vote on leaving, as a part of my response?
Then take it up with Cameron....idiot.
A 2/3 vote to leave would be reasonable - if a 2/3 vote had been required to join the EU. It wasn't, so it's not.
The prior commenter's text was nonsense - no one was demanding to buy cars that were secret polluters. As for jingoist, that word doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Take it up with Cameron, it's his brainchild. But that, like the rest of your post, is a non-reqponse to demanding Leave obtain a supermajority vote to leave the EU, when a supermajority vote wasn't required to join it or stay in.
Well, you could take a break from posting. Every little bit helps....case in point:
Same as the conservatives in Canada under Harper: had a solid majority of seats despite most of the population voting against their party. However, highlighting one of the failures of "representative democracy" doesn't do much to promote your thesis that those who wanted a Brexit should have relied on it.
Take it up with Cameron. Who, as prime minister, isn't doing much to boost your argument that the Leave camp should have relied on electoral politics, either.
With that one correction, that's a list of pluses, not minuses. A devalued pound helps the manufacturing base the UK has left after 30 years of Tories trying to drown it in a bathtub, as well as tourism.
That's your elitism talking again. Besides, your precious representative democracy can get to work out details of this divorce now that it's a thing.
Don't stab that eye with your fork, now.
Can't justify the unjustifiable.
Then take it up with the person who proposed it - Cameron. But the mechanism for leaving is a separate issue from whether or not they should leave, and on which a majority has spoken.
This isn't hard either: because otherwise you're stacking the deck in plain sight to suit your preferences. You can't tell one side that they have to get 50%, and the other side they have to get 60% (or 70%, whatever) with a straight face without playing Calvinball.
Oooookay then. So if the Remain faction gets what they want, a second referendum, you'd have no problem with the Leave people insisting they need 60% to stay, when only 50% was required to Leave? If so, you'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be consistent.
Because a public referendum is an infinitely superior choice for issues like this, as opposed to trusting an elite few who represent monied interests first and the people a very distant second.
Says the Apple Hateboi who's way too impressed with his own pedantry.
You're dumb. When he's talking about the $200 cost of the phone, he's talking about how much it costs him. Personally. To walk out of the store with that phone. If the difference in price for him for a contract without a phone, and a contract bundled with a phone, is $200.....that means.....drum roll.....the phone cost him $200.
The "but but that phone is subsidized" canard only affects how much the phone costs Sprint, not creimer.
Any time they opened their mouths and fear-mongering came out about how leaving would result in economic armageddon. That Leave was dominated by racists - and again, it's not like there weren't in in Remain, either. Just as the victims of their imperialism in Africa and and the Middle East.
Having a democratic vote is.....undemocratic. I assume this line of thought is a work in progress?
This isn't hard. If joining the EU didn't require a supermajority, then neither should leaving. Can't have "majority rules for me, supermajority for thee".
As if there weren't any lies from the Remain side. /rolls eyes
By.....counting the votes and noting the majority? Sounds like hand waving.
Obvious false dichotomy is obvious. And lame, as you could keep on tacking on ad hoc preconditions forever - first get rid of the House of Lords, but then you should ditch the monarchy before leaving the EU. And then make reparations for the Iraq war before leaving the EU, because reasons.
Your delusion. The UK is one of the largest economies in Europe - if the continent is willing to keep buying gas from Russia, they aren't going to cut off their noses (and access to a huge market) in a fit of pique. And of course a completely sovereign is going to have more control over negotiations that one voice out of 30 - to suggest otherwise is just being obtuse.
Nah, that's the transparent propaganda from the establishment media - which some people are taking credulously, for some reason. So they paraded around some morons who didn't know what the vote was about - whoop de freaking do. You could also go to any city in America, and if you ask enough people, find someone who's shocked that America elected a black president.
As opposed to the lies from Remain? Plenty of racists to be found there, too.
You mean, go through a herculean effort to rally 75% of the populace to get 50.00001% of elected officials to agree with the majority. That's not "sane", that's taking your elitism and wrapping it in the veneer of representative democracy.
So, end of argument on demanding a supermajority from the other side, then.
Makes as much sense as your tautology.
Are you? You do know that equivalent Fandroid phones cost the same and are also subsidized, yes? Or is this one of those things thats only an issue when Apple is involved?
With Sprint? Most likely nothing. Thus making his phone $200, unless he wanted out of his contract.
Wait, what? If you were caught cheating on a test in high school, would your parents have been impressed by saying, "hey, these were the grades you wanted?" You might wanna back up and start over here, because so far you've got a word salad.
No. He didn't. But good use of straw man + handwringing for those poor beleaguered capitalists.