Taro T

Good. That's the only place that I've seen state that he's left town.

wtf? NFL Network just said on a teaser that Mario Williams left town.

They did back in '92 when Buchanan was challenging GHWB. Also, in '76 and '80 when Reagan and Kennedy challenged the incumbents respectively. But, going back to your point, I can't recall them covering an incumbent's primary without a non-marginalized challenger.

Yep.

Really? Aren't you the same guy that put Tom's quote in bold, underlined, huge font and stated Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile those 2 views? You state that it's a bad law but you're good with it.

Close, but no cigar. Wife's also an engineer.

Too many of his 'compromises' seem to be of the sort like he made on the 'Catholic institutions must pay for abortifacients' deal. His initial position was that Catholic institutions must pay for their employees to get abortifacients. When that was derided, his position morphed to the insurers of Catholic institutions must pay for those employees to get abortifacients. Now, unless the insurance companies are going to go bankrupt, those costs will get passed back to the Catholic institutions and the end result is the exact same as what he started out with. When the end result is the exact same as what the initial result was, there wasn't much compromise now was there? He starts out in left field (or more accurately, outside the stadium towards the left field side) and then moves about 2 ft towards center, if at all, but he's still in left field.

Probably. But if the system is remedied to allow for more realistic #'s of immigrants to come into the country legally AND if it has been remedied to cut the flow of illegals entering the country to a trickle then a partial amnesty seems reasonable to 'solve' the problem of what do you do with the existing illegals. Realistically, there's no way all the existing illegals will end up deported nor in jail for illegally entering the U.S.. We have to do something with them and ideally something that doesn't just encourage more illegal entry to the U.S..

AJ, Just saw the thread now. Very sorry for your loss. LA's advice is sound. When you're ready, get another one. Wife's cat passed away in my arms last Spring, and I expect our older dog to go sometime in the near future. He can't hear, has cataracts, and not much of a sense of smell, and arthritis but ol' Dogian Gray keeps going. He's had more lives than the cat including getting literally driven over by a truck last fall.

Wow, they're giving us credit for '64 & '65. Cool. But no love for the Bandits nor Stampede? Bummer. (Though not even remotely surprising.)

And with 50% of the vote counted, Romney is up 41% - 37%.

Very limited #'s can come to this country legally. Would seem to me the 1st step would be to increase the number of visas available for both skilled and unskilled workers and also make it easier for legal immigrants to become citizens. After that, get the border secured better and as that happens increase the unskilled worker visas further. Once the border is secured, then allow a partial amnesty program for those that were here prior to the initiatives to begin actually securing the border.

I'm certain your heirs will appreciate that after they scrape you and your bike off the pavement.

But a decision made to day absolutely wouldn't effect the profits nor loss on that day unless they actually directly altered either revenues or expenses that day. Few executive decisions will affect the revenues or expenses on the day they are made enough at all, much less to a large enough degree to effect a change to the P&L. A decision made today will possibly effect the value of the firm because it could effect future revenues, expenses, or both, both in quantity and in timing. Even a decision as monumental as Steve Jobs deciding to develop the iPhone didn't show up on a P&L for years. It didn't show up in Apple's valuation for years as well. It didn't even affect the 'true' value of Apple for nearly as long as the probability of success was low during much of the R&D phase and the present value of the iPhone in the early '00's was negligible. The decision had been made and ultimately a lot of value was added due to the implementation and subsequent decisions, but that value wasn't there at the time of the original decision. And the distinctions you've made on which Presidents were 'businessmen' and which were 'academics' seem a bit arbitrary. That stated, I'd much prefer to see a President with executive experience (from civilian or military) than one with legislative experience. An executive has to make decisions, a legislator deliberates. The skill sets which make one good in each sphere are unique. For the most part, those with executive experience make better Presidents. (President Carter being an obvious exception to the rule. When you're the outlier, you're the outlier, regardless of background.)

It may work out that way, and if President Obama is reelected, that will have been a significant factor. I don't believe that we can know this far out that this election will be more about Romney's social views than about the President's record. What Romney proposed on Wednesday is far more likely to improve the economy than what the President came out with on Tuesday. If the economy is picking up in September and October, Romney (or whoever emerges from the convention in August) isn't going to win. If it's where it is today then, Romney has a very realistic chance. And if it swings back into recession, we're looking at 1980 all over again, possibly with '84ish EC totals. The President wants the election to be about anything but the economy of his 1st 3 years. (Eh, judging by his speeches recently, he might prefer that to health insurance reform, but that's about it.) The Republicans will not likely back from that narrative lightly. Remember, back in '80, Reagan was the scary right wing zealot that wanted to go to war with the Soviets. He got elected by asking 1 question: 'are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?' If the answer to that question is the same in October '12 as it was in October '80, the scary Morman wins. That his effectiveness as President is 'unknown' will be a very viable alternative to the known effectiveness of the current officeholder.

Just going by what you'd wrote earlier in the OP and were discussing in several subsequent posts. People pointed out correctly, that your original statement is only rarely at most correct. It simply doesn't happen that a decision rolls through to immediately effect the bottom line. You've now adjusted from "decision" to "announcement" and continue on as if there is no distinction between the two. And for the record, a P&L statement is historical looking. A decision made at 9AM will not affect nor effect the P&L at 5PM that day in any materially significant way. An announcement made on a particular day can quite likely effect stock price that same day. Though where the stock goes in the long term will be dependent upon the implementation of that announced decision and not the announcement itself. Stock price is forward looking. And oddly enough, an "announcement" by the President will be treated similarly.

I thought you, Magox, and a few others had already addressed that point rather sufficiently.

So all decisions are announcements now? Think this through ...

When it's being waved around by some putz walking on the train tracks oblivious to the oncoming train, yep.

That's about the most accurate assessment to answer AD's question that I've seen. Considering that you're the poster child, it's mildly amazing that you were the one to post it.

Eh, sometimes you've gotta call 'em likes ya sees 'em.

Ironically enough, entering an OTW thread on a topic that doesn't interest you and then posting that it doesn't interest you, elicits roughly the same level of interest from those that do have an interest in the topic. Whining about not liking the topic of a clearly labeled thread is beyond dull. Though it does seem to explain why (as expressed in your LAMP thread) you'd find making your family watch a movie they hate entertaining.

Holy cow, by choosing this as your response you are proving that you truly are a !@#$ing idiot (sorry Tom), an aspiring to be paid partisan hack, or more likely both.

What sort of return are the corporations getting on their cash? Compare that with their typical ROI? How is earning a fraction of what they would under normal circumstances a good thing? Due to the risk involved they aren't spending on expansion. Due to the risk involved they aren't releasing that money back to the shareholders as dividends. They're stuffing the mattress full of cash because they expect a high probability of needing that cash. How is that a good thing?