Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (761304)	1/4/2014 5:25:30 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1574216

so we should go back to 5 dollars a day paid for auto workers, since it was so great

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (761304)	1/4/2014 5:26:06 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1574216

Barack Obama A Weak Ass Fool ........................................ Tuesday, August 27, 2013 theulstermanreport.com: “It’s all money and influence for them now, nothing more. These last eight years is all about setting up the next thirty, and Jarrett is going to be right in the middle of all of it.” -WHI A very shocking portrait of a distant, shallow, and largely indifferent Barack Obama – a portrait that subsequent media reports then substantiated. And perhaps most significant of all, was White House Insider’s insistence that it was Valerie Jarrett who wielded the power within the Obama West Wing, circumventing the Oval Office from her own second story White House office. This portrayal too was later supported and documented by Mainstream Media reports. Here now is part one of this conversation, which took place after nearly three hours of fishing together, and over several cold beers. I didn’t catch a damn thing, but the discussion and the beer that followed more than made up for it… ______________________________ UM: Can we start here? WHI: You the boss. Ask away. UM: Looking back, what were you most right about, and what were you most wrong about? WHI: About what? Obama? The election? What do you mean? UM: Start with…start at the place shortly after you first let me publish our conversations. You pointed out trouble at the DOJ, and were laying hints about Valerie Jarrett. Go ahead and start there. WHI: Son, I can’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning, and the most important thing on my mind is when my next real good bowel movement might be. I can’t remember any of that sht. Sorry. UM:* You were right about the DOJ, right about Jarrett. Do you agree with that? WHI: Yeah – sure, but I could give a sht about being right, because in the end, they fcking won, and that’s all that matters, right? UM: Before we get to the election, go back to your warnings about the DOJ and Jarrett. You were right on there. That has to feel good, to have your information substantiated like that. (A little aside here reader – when WHI hears something that really annoys or angers them, they have this habit of scrunching their face up like they just got a whiff of something awful. While funny to behold, it also lets me know that I’ve managed to once again pose a question they find completely idiotic. This last question had me receiving that very same look.) WHI: Let me say it reeeaaaaaaal slow for you, ok? They won – we lost. That’s all that matters. This ain’t some “everybody’s a winner” bullsht. I got my ass kicked, and there it is. What you gonna do? UM:* I understand, but…I won’t go back to re-wording that question, but for the purpose of…of getting us some updated perspective here. There will be readers reading this who have been with us since the beginning. I especially want to give them a reference point of your frame of mind between then and now. WHI: (nodding head and laughing) Oh – like letting them know how much of a loser I am, right? Yeah – g0t it. Yeah, sure thing. UM: Let me give you a word, or a phrase, or a name, and you tell me what comes to mind. WHI: That word association bullsht, right? Not that…don’t mean it’s bullsht. Sorry, being an asshle. You know, what I do. Go ahead then, get on with it. UM:* Eric Holder WHI: (Repeats scrunched face look, leans back) Ouch. Right to it, huh? Didn’t I tell you he’d be gone? UM: You did. WHI: And is he gone? UM: No – he’s still the Attorney General. WHI: Well there you go – kicked my ass good then. Thanks for the reminder, son. UM: Can you elaborate on that? What do you think of now when you hear the name Eric Holder? WHI: I think I got my ass kicked on it. I think some Republican fcks forgot what a set of real brass ones feel like. I think the American people are too fcking pre-occupied with whatever crap it is they call livin’ to pay attention to high crimes that should have had these people run out on rails by now. I think the people that had the power to act, didn’t. And that is that, man. Those people…sht, we gave them the leads. We gave them the names. They gave us sht. Promises of doing something, attitude like they cared. But in the end…hell no. A bunch of posturing back slapping bullsht. Count ‘em up yourself! How many times we go at the DOJ? How many times we have to? I mean really, man? Who gets away with this much incoming? Before this White House, nobody. Nobody got away with this much sht. I blame Democrats and I blame Republicans, and I blame millions of Americans so dumb and stupid and lazy who have allowed this sht to go on like it has. Fck ‘em. And I sincerely mean that, son. Fck ‘em. UM:* You don’t really mean that. Not entirely. WHI: You don’t think so? This country has gone to hell. You know it. I know it. The rest of ‘em – they don’t care. So I’ll say it again – fck ‘em. UM:* Maybe it’s not so much they don’t care as much as it is self preservation. I believe almost half of the country is on some kind of federal government assistance, something the Obama administration continues to push for. WHI: Yeah, I see what you mean there. But some of those people, hell, a lot of those people, were looking for a way out of working all along, right? They were still part of the problem. UM: Right. What about Valerie Jarrett? Give me a first thing comes to mind description of her. WHI: Not gonna do that, but I’ll give you a heads up on something about her that came my way a few weeks ago. UM: What’s that? WHI: Now this ain’t me saying it, but what I heard. And that was that Jarrett is planning her exit from the White House. That it’s in the works. UM: Her choice I assume? WHI: Oh, hell yeah. And I doubt she’ll be giving up her influence one bit. Guessing it’s something to do with paving the road for her expanded role beyond the White House, which means what she’s really up to is setting up the public profiles of the president and First Lady. They are planning on something that will outshine the Clinton Initiative stuff by billions of dollars. It’s all money and influence for them now, nothing more. These last eight years is all about setting up the next thirty, and Jarrett is going to be right in the middle of all of it. UM: Did you read my report on how Obama was the one to go to Jarrett’s house in Martha’s Vineyard not once, but twice? WHI: I did, and you thinking that was odd was right. The President of the United States was openly acting like Jarrett’s btch. They ain’t even trying to pretend that isn’t the case anymore. It’s weird, but it’s what I saw, it’s what others saw, it’s what everyone inside the White House knows. She’s the president. Now you’ll have some people read that and think no way, that’s just not possible, and go back to sticking their heads up their asses. No, the real deal is Valerie Jarrett is and has always been swinging the biggest stick inside this administration. Anyone want to offer up proof otherwise, I’d love to see it. UM:* What about Benghazi? Where— WHI: (interrupts) That was one of the things we weren’t going to discuss, remember? UM: Right…ok. How about you explain to the readers why you won’t discuss it? WHI: Simple – too f*cking painful. And I’m not just talking about the four dead Americans. I’m talking about the thousands of dead from the weapons they’re smuggling. I’m talking about how corrupt the disclosure process has been. I’m talking about the complicity of the media to help cover it up. comment migdalia.L There is nothing new about this conversation, many Americans are a where that the ugly woman Jarrett is running the Country, she tell the idiot Obama what to do. What even funnier is that these traitors think that Americans are stupid, we know what is going on. The useful idiots that can not accept that their messiah is a traitor are these (95%) blacks and some whites that will support a black man even if the black man throws these idiots under the bus which he will do. Aug 27, 2013, 1

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (761304)	1/4/2014 5:55:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574216

Yes outpaying the competition can be beneficial, you can get better employees and/or better employee retention. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't . The more differences in skill in employees matter, the more likely paying more than others is to be beneficial up to a point (Past a certain point you get diminishing returns in extra quality or retention, then perhaps negative returns in retention when you pay them so much that they have no need to work anymore). But it essentially never makes business sense in terms of "the employees can buy (or buy more) of the product if we pay them more. I agree with you that such an idea makes no sense (except perhaps in extreme and contrived circumstances that are unlikely to occur in the real world). The point is that some people argue for higher wages, as something that not only won't harm the employers, but will actually help them, based on that idea of a "the employees can buy more if we pay them more" business strategy. In act you yourself, just a couple of days ago, posted "he raised his employees wages reasoning that they would now have more money to buy his cars..." Message 29310405 I've heard it claimed that he actually said such a thing. I haven't bothered to check on that part since it doesn't really matter. If he said it, he my not have believed it (in other words it may have been dishonest rather then illogical, stupid or foolish). If he believed it then he was wrong. including IBM when I started there. Not to the point of Ford when Henry was in charge, but then again you didn't start at IBM in the early 20th century. Still even adjusting for the era, I'm pretty sure Ford was more paternalistic or controlling then most large companies in terms of control outside of work. (Almost certainly not uniquely so, just more than what was typical.) Edit - Ford himself backed off of some of the most paternalistic and controlling aspects of his policy later on. The policy started in 1914, and by 1922 he wrote about such programs in the past tense and stated - ""paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date."