Uncle Punk

I am failing to get a legitimate point. We should emulate the Japanese in our business practices? I don't see where they are regulated to uphold that ratio it's just a small sampling to make a point that misses a mark. Conducting ourselves as they do in business won't lead to a recession or depression? Oh wait......... I will take my chances with our system that allows us to have the freedom to succeed or fail without a formula that regulates my success or compensates me for my failures. I value our freedoms and if you want a government to take care of you like a child you should probably go and take advantage of the opportunity since you don't seem to be able to fend for yourself and want the government to protect you from the bad business men.

So a manager or owner finds a way to increase their market or a way to increase profit and the company is able to employ more people. This person is supposed to be compensated at the same rate as those who are benefiting from those decisions? A company decides to develop a product using their profits from an existing product. The product fails and isn't received by their customers so all the money risked by the company is lost. Do the employees need to give money back to help make up for the risk the company took? After all they are benefiting from the good outcome of a prior risk. Rewarding everyone equally in a business environment is not good for business if everyone isn't going to accept the risks equally. If sales drop 50% and you still have a job should you take 50% less pay? Don't most small business owners take a pay cut when their sales drop?

Oh my fucking God this has to be the single most stupid post I have ever read on this forum. You obviously have no clue what made this country great or how to create wealth. I would suggest you take your ignorant ass over to Japan and partake in their superior system to ours.

Sounds like someone has his issues all mixed up together. What does private businesses CEOs pay have to do with issue 2? Absolutely fucking nothing. Issue two is a tool that is to be given to the public sector so that they might have a better chance at balancing their budgets. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Oh, I know, because it lines their pockets with money stolen from the rest of us to pay benefits to others that exceed most peoples who work and earn a living. I understand how hard it would be for a public employee to support the issue because it will take money away from them just as I would expect those on welfare to not vote for a law to take money away from them. I am for the issue because it will take money away from me. All a matter of self interest for all concerned. My hope is that the majority of those who get money taken from them to give to others will prevail over the minority who benefit from the scam.

Federal workers have had collective bargaining taken away from them for over thirty years, yet they seem to be doing okay. It may feel good to take away the collective bargaining agreement for Ohio workers but I would guess it gets perverted into something that makes no significant difference just like it didn't with the federal employees. When you have complicit politicians giving away money they don't earn and don't have to answer to a bottom line government contracts will always give away more than a responsible business owner would who cares about the longevity of their company. Hell we can leave out a business owner and just make it a person responsible for a household worrying about its budget. There is no way they are going to overpay for services as well.

I have let a buyer ride a bike I was selling. I showed him the title and he showed me the money, that way we both knew that we were able to do business with each other. I then got a deposit from him and put it in my pocket that was enough to cover my deductable if anything went wrong. I knew from talking to him prior to him getting to my house he had ridden a bike before and the gear he had to take the test ride only assured me that I was right. I was selling a ZX12R and at the time I had a ZX6R as well so I took him for a ride around my area. I didn't think he could get away too far from me being in an unfamiliar area.

If you are okay with lowering a Ninja 250 and are okay with the power one puts out I would suggest a scooter for an alternative. We went the Ninja 250 route and I enjoyed it but she didn't. She rides the scooter without issue and is confident in what she is doing. A scooter takes away most of the new rider overload with the clutch and gear changes taken out of the equation. The 250 scooter we have will keep up with a Ninja 250 and handle so close to its capabilities that we gave up nothing. I understand that you are a Kawi fan but if you are too cool for a scooter I would suggest taking a serious look at the Honda 250. It is easier to adjust the ride height and will not affect the handling as much as it will the Ninja.

I quoted what I heard you say and apparently was correct. Your definition of a bad representative may not be someone else’s. This may be why people keep getting elected to represent those same people who keep voting for the bad representatives.

So you're okay with your guy staying in office forever but you don't want someone else’s guy doing it. Or is it okay as long as we don’t pay them too much?

Just out of curiosity, if it doesn't really clamp currently and is functioning what issue will be solved by redesigning one that clamps? I don’t doubt you expect to see an improvement but what are you expecting to gain?

Ron Paul doesn't agree with pay raises and he doesn't agree with term limits. Which is more important?

Most 1/4" cutters that you can get any speed and rigidity out of only have 3/4" of flute. I don't know how thick your part is but you may want to increase your minimum radii to a standard cutter with a flute length long enough to cut through the part if that is your intention.

I would run a horizontal 1/4" rib in the middle of the enlightening cut outs. Finite Element Analysis.

Please do not rep the rep killer.

I agree that's why I feel sorry for the old lady. She was tricked into making the commercial in the first place by some shady people who had their own agenda and used her to promote it. Others have used her words to show the truth about the consequences of being lied to by the shady people.

Aren't you already used to being a second class citizen?

Where has it been determined that what was done is illegal? I see it as just correcting a misconception that the old lady had with the correct interpretation of the outcome.

In very rare instances can someone capable of believing in a fairy tale for their reality also have the ability to engage in a rational discussion but you already know that. Have fun trolling the delusional.

Bored much? Asking a question you already know the answer to.

Forced into it at risk of being put out of business. It was a poor social experiment that didn't work. People who had money were forced to lend it at a risk they weren't going to accept so they packaged the risk and sold it to others. Smart money on their part and the results were very predictable. All of this could have been avoided if the government wouldn't have had the power to interfere with business and make sure poor people who shouldn't or couldn't afford a house got one. The risks shouldn't have been forced onto the banks and the banks end running the risk was the only option they had to protect themselves. In the end the government had to bail out a problem they created and we paid for. Had they been up front about their social experiment and subsidized the loans up front the political backlash from that decision would have prevented the whole mess.

Beat me to it. Wait until you see their new model for Glocks they are coming out with.

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2011/09/30/woman-to-serve-15-days-for-choking-walmart-greeter/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdEwIwGsqqw&feature=related

Retention holsters suck!