Taro T

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?

You didn't like Howard, Frank, and Dandy Don?

He could probably make an awesome roadkill retatta.

Shula hired at least 1 of his kids down in Miami and Wade worked for Bum when he was starting out. I'd expect there are a few others.

For his time, his offensive stats as a SS were amazing. And he was solid defensively. I've got no issues with him getting into the HoF.

Yes they are. They have several contracts coming off the books next year and a billionaire owner that could send a contract or 3 to the minors if necessary to make a great deal today. It doesn't take long at all to get out of cap jail when you've got a loaded owner that wants to win.

Just as long as you don't cheer any of his 1,000+ yards and 9 or so TD catches next year or beyond, that sounds reasonable.

What percentage of those in OWS are saying that they worked their butt off? Any guess as to what percentage of those are delusional, smoking some really good stuff, or both? Of those few that aren't delusional nor smoking some really good stuff, what percentage worked their butt off earning a degree in such high demand fields as women's studies and the like?

Now, assuming that your guess is correct (which it is, btw), take the next step and think about why someone (especially someone like Holder) might oppose that law.

I'd go with the fall of the Berlin Wall. As a close second, I'd go w/ Iraq invading Kuwait. (Though for me personally, clearly my birth is the most historically significant event.)