shugasheila
New member
IMHO it is never good when one party holRAB 2 branches of goverment.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Election Poll
- Thread starter rockchick
- Start date
The current situation is especially vexing because one party essentially controls all 3 branches.
IMO, we need one party to control the white house, one party to control congress, and a third party for the supreme court. Change the constitution so supreme court justices are elected to serve for an insanely long time (10 or 15 years), and then only allow people from either the constitution party or the libertarian party to get elected.
IMO, we need one party to control the white house, one party to control congress, and a third party for the supreme court. Change the constitution so supreme court justices are elected to serve for an insanely long time (10 or 15 years), and then only allow people from either the constitution party or the libertarian party to get elected.
Looking forward
New member
With so few listed companies able to withstand even the most generous quantitative analysis when it comes to their stock price, market analysts have a HUGE amount of control over the stock price of any given company.
In my experience, CEOs tend to be the corporeal incarnation of irrational exuberance. These are the folks who, at least publicly, will not admit it is raining until they see a wall of floodwater bearing down on them. then they say "there may be some moisture...."
For many, I would imagine that the Wal Mart projections for November sales is that wall of floodwater.
In my experience, CEOs tend to be the corporeal incarnation of irrational exuberance. These are the folks who, at least publicly, will not admit it is raining until they see a wall of floodwater bearing down on them. then they say "there may be some moisture...."
For many, I would imagine that the Wal Mart projections for November sales is that wall of floodwater.
Yeah, I saw one for $995.
I did find a few historical graphs and it seemed to show that they thought a downturn only would last 6 months or so. Of the 5 years on the graph it seemed like the trend was for things to last 6 months to a year.
I'm not to worried about it though....the economy is what it is.
I did find a few historical graphs and it seemed to show that they thought a downturn only would last 6 months or so. Of the 5 years on the graph it seemed like the trend was for things to last 6 months to a year.
I'm not to worried about it though....the economy is what it is.
Alternative Chick
New member
I'm glad you admit that the President and his adminstration aren't worth their salaries and are mostly featherbedding fluff, being paid to exist and do nothing of any value to society.
Apparently, you are unable to differentiate between elected officials and government employees. Additionally, you do not seem to comprehend what "About" means in my statement.
Obviously, you are a child.
...wet behind the ears.:xgood:
...short on experirnce.:xgood:
...quick to judge.:xgood:
...serious, but mistaken.:xgood:
:xhoho:
Obviously, you are a child.
...wet behind the ears.:xgood:
...short on experirnce.:xgood:
...quick to judge.:xgood:
...serious, but mistaken.:xgood:
:xhoho:
I follow the money. Apparently you can't.
Virtually every official in the adminstration is being paid by the gov't. Many of those officials have some form of savings with the gov't through their jobs. Many of them are drawing benefits from their jobs in the gov't.
How is someone who is being paid, has some form of retirement account and gets benefits from the gov't for working not a government employee?
I guess you'd say that a employee of a company who is being paid, has a retirment account and gets benefits from that company isn't a company employee?
So all of the Enron workers shouldn't be complaining because they didn't work at Enron?
You're insane.
Virtually every official in the adminstration is being paid by the gov't. Many of those officials have some form of savings with the gov't through their jobs. Many of them are drawing benefits from their jobs in the gov't.
How is someone who is being paid, has some form of retirement account and gets benefits from the gov't for working not a government employee?
I guess you'd say that a employee of a company who is being paid, has a retirment account and gets benefits from that company isn't a company employee?
So all of the Enron workers shouldn't be complaining because they didn't work at Enron?
You're insane.
K
>>>Kyle<<<
Guest
You don't follow worRAB very well do you?
Elected officials are certainly paid with tax money. You have firm grasp on the obvious.
My statement that I would would cut government departments in half would affect paid workers who are either hired or appointed. I did not address elected officials. Generally, they can't be fired and they will eventually be replaced because they hold an office, the filling of which is prescribed by the laws of the governing body that set up the position for which qualified candidates run in elections by which voters install these people to their respective elected positions of officialdom.
When I fire half the government employees, they won't be replaced.
Notwithstanding your previous density in this discussion, you still don't get it do you?
Getting rid of selected elective positions is second on my list of government parings. Firing half the existing employees is first.
You need to watch that strawman approach, too. Take a lot of lessons from the Velcro Twins, do you?
Elected officials are certainly paid with tax money. You have firm grasp on the obvious.
My statement that I would would cut government departments in half would affect paid workers who are either hired or appointed. I did not address elected officials. Generally, they can't be fired and they will eventually be replaced because they hold an office, the filling of which is prescribed by the laws of the governing body that set up the position for which qualified candidates run in elections by which voters install these people to their respective elected positions of officialdom.
When I fire half the government employees, they won't be replaced.
Notwithstanding your previous density in this discussion, you still don't get it do you?
Getting rid of selected elective positions is second on my list of government parings. Firing half the existing employees is first.
You need to watch that strawman approach, too. Take a lot of lessons from the Velcro Twins, do you?