On 05/01/2016 04:10 PM, T wrote:
"Fiorina says in her autobiography that she pushed back against
the pressure for short-term growth at any cost, and two former Lucent
collegues with whom she remains friendly back her up. On the other hand,
this 2001 Fortune story, which described Lucent’s irresponsible growth
habits, cites sources saying Fiorina made it known that Wall Street
would generously reward companies that emphasized and delivered robust
revenue growth. And an executive who sat across the table from Fiorina
in a big vendor financing negotiation, when asked this week about what
he remembers of the bargaining, described Fiorina as being dead set on
chalking up a huge sale. He adds: “The press release was always very
important to her.”"

Unfortunately, she understood exactly how the game is played. Even Apple
immediately stopped being the idol of Wall Street when they missed their
projections.

On 05/01/2016 07:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Trump said he wants to go way beyond waterboarding.

He better have a damn good lawyer. :-)

Our own troops experience the training to resist.


He's working out the details with John Yoo.

On Sun, 01 May 2016 11:02:47 -0600, rbowman wrote
in

On 05/01/2016 06:37 AM, Zak W wrote:
Oren wrote in news:2vs9ib9vav93akca8jr1a3c983s3f5v83a@
4ax.com:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:26:07 -0400, wrote:

I am not sure why people think she is so smart.

How smart must one be to go from a Secretary to leading a Fortune 20
company?

Say whatever you want about Carly, but I would still **** her. Twice.


You have some strange taste. Maybe it's just an unattractive hairstyle
but she looked a lot better in the HP days. Now it looks like a nip and
tuck gone wrong.


I think we all probably looked better in those days.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 05/02/2016 06:26 AM, CRNG wrote:
I think we all probably looked better in those days.

I never looked better, just different...

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:37:30 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Trump said he wants to go way beyond waterboarding.

He better have a damn good lawyer. :-)


And be ready for the chaos that results when the military refuses
the order. Trump already addressed that, he said that they would
obey his orders, no matter what. Trump is special, you know.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:00:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 05/01/2016 12:34 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:00:57 -0700, T wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated
by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for
a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current
role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role.
Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no
longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of
their incompetence."

After what she pulled at Lucent, I am shocked that HP picked her up.
I am also somewhat baffled as to why she did not go to prison.

I'm familiar with the principle. Been surrounded by it all my life.
Saw a Warden install a flag pole after a base commander denied his
request to do so. The Warden ended up in center office in a closet
with no windows. He was caught talking on the phone one day, so the
phone was removed from his desk. Don't mess with a military commander
when you are a guest by the host agency.

What evidence can you provide about Lucent that Carly warranted a
prison term? Still needing your links to criminal activity.


Here is a rather long winded article detailing what went on.
I pretty much told you what happened. Only read if you have a lot of
time on your hands.

http://fortune.com/2010/10/15/carly-...-telecom-past/


The stock holders were misled and many lost big time. As to
which laws were broken, I can not say, but the fraud laws
and SEC rules on disclosure certainly would apply. Or should
have. These kinds of things are very "selectively" enforced.


No where in that article does Fortune say that the stockholders
were mislead or that they think any crime was committed.
They also don't seem to understand accounting.
They complain that Lucent made loans to customers, then put them
on the balance sheet as assets. Where would Fortune have put them?
They are assets and I'd bet that if you look at the 10Ks, etc
that they had statements in there disclosing that these were loans
to customers. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't also some
discussion of the risks involved with those loans.

The late 90s were the internet bubble years. There were all kinds
of new startups promising great things, raising capital, buying
eqpt and getting it financed various ways. So, it doesn't seem
too nuts for Lucent to be offering financing for eqpt sales.
I'd note that there is a lot missing here. For example, while they
try to use this one transaction against Fiorina, why is it that
they don't tell us how much, if anything, Lucent actually lost on it?
They say that there was an agreement for Lucent to provided $440 mil
in loans, but nothing about how much was actually lent, what was lost,
etc. Pretty crappy reporting. Those loans were to buy eqpt from
Lucent over God knows what period and for all we know Pathnet may not
have gotten very far in actually buying and/or deploying anything.
Lucent clearly didn't just hand them $440 mil, it would have to have
occurred over time as eqpt was ordered and installed.
Netpath was out of business in just a few years, hard to imagine they
bought $440 mil of anything from Lucent or were ever lent anything like
that amount. The article also points out
that Lucent's competitors were doing the same things. It wasn't anything
that was hidden from investors. Back then, investors knew that companies
with no sales were being started by 20 year olds, they didn't care and
bid their stock up to market caps of $500 mil or more. So, for investors
to not pay attention to the fact that Lucent was lending money to these
types to buy eqpt shouldn't surprise anyone. Hell, if Fiorina refused
to provide financing, while Nortel, Siemens, etc did, Wall Street would
probably have been calling for her to be fired.

I'm not convinced Fiorina was a great business exec or worthy of being
HP's CEO, etc. But this kind of hit piece, with very little substance
isn't convincing.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2016 15:00:33 -0700, T wrote:

The stock holders were misled and many lost big time. As to
which laws were broken, I can not say, but the fraud laws
and SEC rules on disclosure certainly would apply. Or should
have. These kinds of things are very "selectively" enforced.

Carly mislead a corporation that big. All by her lonesome. Sure.

Tell me her crime and I will research it.

The referenced Fortune article not only doesn't mention or imply any
crime, it also does not even say that Fiorina or Lucent mislead investors.
I'll bet if you pull up the 10Ks for that period, you'll find that the
loan they are carping about was in there, it was noted that it was a
loan to a customer to finance eqpt sales, etc. Also, while it says
that Lucent made an agreement with Netpath to provide $440 mil in
financing to buy eqpt, there is not one word as to how it turned out.
Rather odd, given that they are trying to use it against Fiorina.
If it resulted in a loss of $440 mil or whatever, why don't they have
that result in there? Sounds like Mr T assumes Lucent just gave them
$440K and it went right down the drain. This was for fiber telecom
gear and you don't install that overnight. I'd bet whatever Lucent
lost on it, it wasn't $440 mil.

On 5/1/2016 2:06 PM, wrote:

When Carly was at Lucent, she had Lucent self funding sales,
then listing the sales to her stockholders without
also listing the liability from the loans. She basically
cooked the books. A lot of people made investment decisions
based on her cooked books and lost their shirts.

Was it condoned and approved by the board members?

I think that the Board of Directors had no clue what she was doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carly was a brilliant choice for Ted Cruz. He needed someone to lay off
his entire campaign staff.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:23:24 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:


That sure sounds like working her way up from secretary to me. If
you're a dunce and incompetent, they probably don't let you move
from secretary to real estate agent, do they?

I don't think she's a dunce or an incompetent (at that level) and she
did work her way up from receptionist to broker.

Then she went to school and started all over again.

And why does history
only start when she got an MBA?

Because the people who hire an MBA don't care if you were once a
secretary, beautician, newspaper delivery girl, a real estate
saleswoman, or an ice cream vendor when they hire the MBA.

They
probably do care, since she's not 18 or even 22 anymore, that she
wasn't in prison or living in a sex commune, but a history of
receptionist and real estate doesn't do anything to get you hired once
you have the MBA and an MS in management.


I see. So according to you, hiring managers don't care if you're a 23
year old MBA right out of school, with only summer jobs at McD's or a 30 year
old who just got an MBA and has a record of selling $10 mil a year
in real estate? It doesn't matter if you have a record of moving up
from a new hire trainee, to a management position, five or ten years
experience, then getting an MBA?

Of course in the real world, it's all relevant. I'd hire an MBA that
had a track record of success, of moving up the ladder, any day over
one that's newly minted with no experience other than working at
McDonald's summer jobs.




Being a real estate agent or even
a receptionist, you're already working in a business.

So is mopping the floor at a business.


Bingo, you're learning. Now show us the mopper who moved from that
to selling real estate, etc and you have a track record of success.




Why do libs
seek to denigrate, undermine hard work?

What a bunch of baloney. I didn't criticize hard work,

You just denigrated hard work again, above.


and you
should ask yourself what makes you imply that I did. Hard work is
good, and it was good that she had a job, but she didn't work her way
up from secretary like it** sounds. That's all I said.

And you're 100% wrong. She *did* work herself up from a secretary
to CEO. She's not a secretary anymore and she was CEO. QED



Can't you
read? **"go from a Secretary to leading a Fortune 20 company". Like
Finch goes from window washer to chairman of the board in the musical
"How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying". A few people do
that without taking a break for a one or two masters, but she didn't.


No one ever said or implied that she didn't get an MBA. WTF is
wrong with you? It's part of the ladder of success.



Why do conservative believe any fool thing that other conservatives
tell them?


You're the fool. It's a demonstrated fact that she worked herself
up from being a secretary to CEO. If some lib loon told you she got
there by affirmative action or the govt doing it for her, why then
libs would be celebrating her path to success.



Libs would celebrate it if
she was hired under affirmative action,

Don't be a stupid fool.


I won't invade your safe space, you have a monopoly on that position.


was demonstrating her
business skills selling drugs on the street,

Don't be a stupid fool.

or got to the top like
Hillary did, riding the coattails of her husband.

She did plenty well at Yale law school herself.

I see, so what Hillary did at Yale, why that's on her record of
success. But Fiorina works her way up from secretary to real estate
agent, to CEO, and that's no good. Go figure.



And everyone who
knew her in the Senate, including quite a few Republicans says she was
a hard worker who came to committee meetings and everywhere else very
well prepared.

Tell us what she accomplished in those years in the Senate, beside
filling up space. Tell us her accomplishments as Sec of State.
Reset button? Syria? Libya? Fall of Iraq? Mideast on Fire?



Of course her husband was a big advantage to her. So
were the Bush brothers' father, the Rockefellers' father, but you
don't hear Democrats bring that up until conservatives bring up their
corresponding nonsense.


Oh, no. The libs never bring up the Bush's. Never. It's always
conservatives who start things. Good grief.



Why do conservatives try to criticize people for no good reason, when
all I did is set the record straight on the fact that Fiorina did not
work her way up from secretary to executive.


You're the one here who is criticizing and lying. You just did it again.



Any more than my
neighbor would say he worked his way up from mowing lawns to VP of
Boeing.


If you're neighbor did in fact mow lawns, put himself through school,
and wound up VP of Boeing then it's true that he worked himself up
from mowing lawns to VP. Why do you libs disparage success?



BTW, the other problem with Fiorina is that she's a liar. She told
several blatant lies when she was running for Prez, only comparable to
Bachmann but far behind Trump. So even if she said she had a real
estate license, I doubt she did, but afaik she hasn't even said that.

Wikip: "In the United States, however, real estate brokers and their
salespersons (commonly called "real estate agents" or, in some states,
"brokers")** assist sellers in marketing their property and selling it
for the highest possible price under the best terms. Crucially, in the
U.S. each state has their own laws defining the types of relationships
that can exist between clients and real estate professionals and those
relationships, such as brokerage and agency, can vary markedly."

**The article said she was a broker, which this paragraph says may be
a mere salesperson who assists the agent. Maybe someone can find out
the law in California and if she was really a broker or just an
assistant or a saleswoman.

WTF don't you go do that instead of posting pure speculative rubbish?
I'd be very surprised if one can call themselves a real estate agent
or broker in CA without being licensed. But heh, you could get off your
lazy ass and prove us wrong.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:13:25 -0700, T wrote:

Link to criminal activity, Todd? Get back to me. About some evil
empire she ran or what.

When Carly was at Lucent, she had Lucent self funding sales,
then listing the sales to her stockholders without
also listing the liability from the loans. She basically
cooked the books. A lot of people made investment decisions
based on her cooked books and lost their shirts.

Was it condoned and approved by the board members?


Not only that, what he says is untrue. The Fortune reference that he
provided says that the eqpt loans Lucent made to it's customers were
on the financials as assets. Fortune seems to not understand accounting,
they imply that something is wrong with that. In fact, those loads are
assets and have to be reported as such. What would be improper would be
if they did not note that those loans were to their customers, that they
carried risk, etc. I'll bet you if one pulls up the 10K's that notation
is in there. Very standard and it would be unusual for a major accounting
firm doing Lucent's reports to not so note it.



Plenty of people lost money when the tech bubble burst. I did. Do you
think is was just Lucent stock that had the bottom fall out?


+1

The Fortune article freely admits that Lucent's competitors were also
financing eqpt loans. And you're right, the tech bubble bursting was
what was disasterous for Lucent, not the loans. The demand for much
of what they build, switches, fiber eqpt, just disappeared overnight.
In fact, the late 90s was the peak of the old telecom business, which
Lucent ruled. People were still buying modems, getting second phone
lines installed, and the Telco's were ordering 5ESS central office
switches and such to support it in droves. And then the merry go
round stopped.


I moved to real estate, later took my money and laughed on the way to
the bank. Then that bubble burst

I think you give Carly to much credit for power, for one woman in a
powerful position.

+1

I don't think she's some business genius, but I don't think she's
incompetent either.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:02:14 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 05/01/2016 12:52 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:13:25 -0700, T wrote:

Link to criminal activity, Todd? Get back to me. About some evil
empire she ran or what.

When Carly was at Lucent, she had Lucent self funding sales,
then listing the sales to her stockholders without
also listing the liability from the loans. She basically
cooked the books. A lot of people made investment decisions
based on her cooked books and lost their shirts.

Was it condoned and approved by the board members?

Plenty of people lost money when the tech bubble burst. I did. Do you
think is was just Lucent stock that had the bottom fall out?

I moved to real estate, later took my money and laughed on the way to
the bank. Then that bubble burst

I think you give Carly to much credit for power, for one woman in a
powerful position.


Listen to her and she was responsible for all kind of
good things, and of course none of the bad things.

She was in charge. Folks did what she told them to do.

Gee, kind of reminds me of someone else. Give me a minute, let me
think..... Oh, I know. TRUMP! Four bankruptcies, not my fault.
Trump U, students suing for fraud over what they say were shyster
real estate seminars, not my fault.

PS: If Lucent was in trouble because of Fiorina and what she
did or didn't do, then why is it that all the other telecom,
internet companies had the same or much worse experience at
exactly the same time? Nortel, for example, went bankrupt.
F cause that too? Even Intel today is trading at one third
of what it was in 2000.

In article ,
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2016 12:28:13 -0700
Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

In article ,
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 12:24:57 -0700
Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:26:07 -0400, wrote:

I am not sure why people think she is so smart.

How smart must one be to go from a Secretary to leading a
Fortune 20 company?

how smart must one be to go from secretary to running a
corporation into the ground?

How long did it take you to do that?

more than the 30 seconds it took you

LOL! Nice but oh so weak...

less weak than yours

CRNG posted for all of us...



On Sun, 01 May 2016 11:02:47 -0600, rbowman wrote
in

On 05/01/2016 06:37 AM, Zak W wrote:
Oren wrote in news:2vs9ib9vav93akca8jr1a3c983s3f5v83a@
4ax.com:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:26:07 -0400, wrote:

I am not sure why people think she is so smart.

How smart must one be to go from a Secretary to leading a Fortune 20
company?

Say whatever you want about Carly, but I would still **** her. Twice.


You have some strange taste. Maybe it's just an unattractive hairstyle
but she looked a lot better in the HP days. Now it looks like a nip and
tuck gone wrong.


I think we all probably looked better in those days.

Not me, I've always been ugly.

--
Tekkie

On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:49:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:23:24 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:


That sure sounds like working her way up from secretary to me. If
you're a dunce and incompetent, they probably don't let you move
from secretary to real estate agent, do they?

I don't think she's a dunce or an incompetent (at that level) and she
did work her way up from receptionist to broker.

Then she went to school and started all over again.

And why does history
only start when she got an MBA?

Because the people who hire an MBA don't care if you were once a
secretary, beautician, newspaper delivery girl, a real estate
saleswoman, or an ice cream vendor when they hire the MBA.

They
probably do care, since she's not 18 or even 22 anymore, that she
wasn't in prison or living in a sex commune, but a history of
receptionist and real estate doesn't do anything to get you hired once
you have the MBA and an MS in management.


I see. So according to you, hiring managers don't care if you're a 23
year old MBA right out of school, with only summer jobs at McD's or a 30 year
old who just got an MBA and has a record of selling $10 mil a year
in real estate? It doesn't matter if you have a record of moving up
from a new hire trainee, to a management position, five or ten years
experience, then getting an MBA?

She didnb't have 5 years' experience or 10, she had 6 months including
receptionist and broker. And she wasn't selling 10 mil or she'd
have gone back to real estate instead of getting an MBA. AFAIK, she
didn't sell anything.

Of course in the real world, it's all relevant. I'd hire an MBA that
had a track record of success, of moving up the ladder, any day over
one that's newly minted with no experience other than working at
McDonald's summer jobs.

6 months IS barely more than a summer job.



Being a real estate agent or even
a receptionist, you're already working in a business.

So is mopping the floor at a business.


Bingo, you're learning. Now show us the mopper who moved from that
to selling real estate, etc and you have a track record of success.




Why do libs
seek to denigrate, undermine hard work?

What a bunch of baloney. I didn't criticize hard work,

You just denigrated hard work again, above.

No I didn't. I told you what those who hire care about, and 6 months
as a receptionist and broker means nothing to them compared to an MBA,
which school they got it from, what grades they got, what references
they got from their professors.

and you
should ask yourself what makes you imply that I did. Hard work is
good, and it was good that she had a job, but she didn't work her way
up from secretary like it** sounds. That's all I said.

And you're 100% wrong. She *did* work herself up from a secretary
to CEO. She's not a secretary anymore and she was CEO. QED

Nonsense.


Can't you
read? **"go from a Secretary to leading a Fortune 20 company". Like
Finch goes from window washer to chairman of the board in the musical
"How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying". A few people do
that without taking a break for a one or two masters, but she didn't.


No one ever said or implied that she didn't get an MBA.

That includes me, but apparently you can't read.

WTF is
wrong with you?

The problem is that you cant' read. She's not like Finch, who went
from the mail room** to Pres of the Board. She took a a break for two
masters.

**His job washing windows was for a contractor, not directly for World
Wide Widgets.)

It's part of the ladder of success.

It's misleading.



Why do conservative believe any fool thing that other conservatives
tell them?


You're the fool. It's a demonstrated fact that she worked herself
up from being a secretary to CEO.

No, she didn't . She got 2 masters, probably with her husband paying
the tuition, but certainly not based on money she saved in 6 months.

If some lib loon told you she got
there by affirmative action or the govt doing it for her, why then
libs would be celebrating her path to success.

Don't be a stupid fool.


Libs would celebrate it if
she was hired under affirmative action,

Don't be a stupid fool.


I won't invade your safe space, you have a monopoly on that position.


was demonstrating her
business skills selling drugs on the street,

Don't be a stupid fool.

or got to the top like
Hillary did, riding the coattails of her husband.

She did plenty well at Yale law school herself.

I see, so what Hillary did at Yale, why that's on her record of
success. But Fiorina works her way up from secretary to real estate
agent, to CEO, and that's no good.

It would be good but she didn't do that. She stopped and got two
masters.

And yes, Hillary at Yale is on her record of success, and Fiorina
working as a receptionist and broker is on her record of success, but
she did not work her way up from broker to CEO. Doing that means
she stayed at one company, or moved laterally or up when moving to
another company, or getting a degree while continuing to work. It
does NOT include leaving the work world, getting 2 masters, and
joining the work world a second time.

Go figure.



And everyone who
knew her in the Senate, including quite a few Republicans says she was
a hard worker who came to committee meetings and everywhere else very
well prepared.

Tell us what she accomplished in those years in the Senate, beside
filling up space. Tell us her accomplishments as Sec of State.
Reset button? Syria? Libya? Fall of Iraq? Mideast on Fire?

I dont' keep track and this is off topic. Is this why you brought her
up in the first place, so you could change topic? The topic is
that Fiorina didn't work her way up from broker.

Of course her husband was a big advantage to her. So
were the Bush brothers' father, the Rockefellers' father, but you
don't hear Democrats bring that up until conservatives bring up their
corresponding nonsense.


Oh, no. The libs never bring up the Bush's. Never. It's always
conservatives who start things. Good grief.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I am right. You try to make me
wrong by putting "never" in twice, but in common parlance, what I said
was correct.


Why do conservatives try to criticize people for no good reason, when
all I did is set the record straight on the fact that Fiorina did not
work her way up from secretary to executive.


You're the one here who is criticizing and lying. You just did it again.

If you think I'm lying, you're an idiot. At most it's a difference of
opinion as to what "working your way up" is.


Any more than my
neighbor would say he worked his way up from mowing lawns to VP of
Boeing.


If you're neighbor did in fact mow lawns, put himself through school,

Now he has to put himself through school? Did Fiorina put herself
through school? You never mentioned it before.

and wound up VP of Boeing then it's true that he worked himself up
from mowing lawns to VP.

Why do you libs disparage success?

What an incredbily stupid remark by you. There is nothing disparaging
about not including mowing lawns in "working his way up"? Do you
think when he gets awards, as he does, that either the person who
introduces him or he says that he worked his way up from mowing lawns?
No they don't. When he comes back to his parents' and sees a
mutual neighbor, he might mention that he mowed my lawn, and I would,
but it's not part of working his way up. There was nothing upward
about it. It didnt' get him into college. His grades did, and it
didn't help get him even his first job. Other things did.



BTW, the other problem with Fiorina is that she's a liar. She told
several blatant lies when she was running for Prez, only comparable to
Bachmann but far behind Trump. So even if she said she had a real
estate license, I doubt she did, but afaik she hasn't even said that.

Wikip: "In the United States, however, real estate brokers and their
salespersons (commonly called "real estate agents" or, in some states,
"brokers")** assist sellers in marketing their property and selling it
for the highest possible price under the best terms. Crucially, in the
U.S. each state has their own laws defining the types of relationships
that can exist between clients and real estate professionals and those
relationships, such as brokerage and agency, can vary markedly."

**The article said she was a broker, which this paragraph says may be
a mere salesperson who assists the agent. Maybe someone can find out
the law in California and if she was really a broker or just an
assistant or a saleswoman.

WTF don't you go do that instead of posting pure speculative rubbish?

Because for the issue at hand, it doesn't matter if she was a broker
or not. It just occurred to me, when I remembered what an unusual
liar she is, that she might well be either exaggerating or carefully
choosing an ambiguous word to describe her second job there.

I'd be very surprised if one can call themselves a real estate agent
or broker in CA without being licensed.

You're just speculating too. The wikip article said some places you
could.

But heh, you could get off your
lazy ass and prove us wrong.

I don't care about this part.

On Mon, 2 May 2016 15:28:02 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

I think we all probably looked better in those days.

Not me, I've always been ugly.

So I guess you weren't graced with a large pecker. Can't lick your
eyebrows, either.
--
"..,what is good is the front end if you don't have the back end"-- Kimberly Guilfoyle

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:55:26 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2016 15:28:02 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

I think we all probably looked better in those days.

Not me, I've always been ugly.

So I guess you weren't graced with a large pecker. Can't lick your
eyebrows, either.
--

I'll bet I'm funnier looking that Tekkie. He's seen my thigh,..err, I mean neck tickler. I let it grow when I left the hospital. In another 6 months I'll look like Billy Gibbons. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Bearded Monster

On Sun, 01 May 2016 21:02:04 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/01/2016 01:11 PM, Oren wrote:
If I had my rather's, I'd rather strip search Carly and let the rookie
examine Hillary's neither regions and orifices for cooties and
contraband.

Hillary would look fetching in an orange jumpsuit but if I had to do a
strip search I'd consider an immediate career switch to fast food
specialist.

Think outside the box [no pun] do a few up skirt photos and you could
rich :-/

On Sun, 01 May 2016 21:08:44 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/01/2016 07:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Trump said he wants to go way beyond waterboarding.

He better have a damn good lawyer. :-)

Our own troops experience the training to resist.


He's working out the details with John Yoo.

Let me know how that works out...

On Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:37:30 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Trump said he wants to go way beyond waterboarding.

He better have a damn good lawyer. :-)


And be ready for the chaos that results when the military refuses
the order. Trump already addressed that, he said that they would
obey his orders, no matter what. Trump is special, you know.

Trimp doesn't get it. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) isn't
the same laws and power Trump thinks he has.
--
"We recommend using your hand to replace the fuse as it will take much longer using your knee."

On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:24:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

The referenced Fortune article not only doesn't mention or imply any
crime, it also does not even say that Fiorina or Lucent mislead investors.

I rest my case, Your Honor.

"The vice president is also president of the United States Senate"

I'll take Carly, fer sure.
--
"We recommend using your hand to replace the fuse as it will take much longer using your knee."

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:32:57 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:


She didnb't have 5 years' experience or 10, she had 6 months including
receptionist and broker.

Show us the references to back that up, I bet you can't.


And she wasn't selling 10 mil or she'd
have gone back to real estate instead of getting an MBA.

You don't know how much she was selling or even what kind of real
estate she was selling. I never said or implied how much she
was selling. I only threw out that $10 mil sales number because
you claimed that whatever one did before getting an MBA is irrelevant,
so I simply asked if you thought a 30 year old candidate with
experience, say selling $10 mil in real estate and an MBA was
the same as a 23 year old with no experience. The notion that
your employment history prior to getting an MBA is irrelevant
is one of the most bizarre things you've ever come up with.



AFAIK, she
didn't sell anything.

But then you're hardly the reference for anything, much less what
Fiorina did 35 years ago.




Of course in the real world, it's all relevant. I'd hire an MBA that
had a track record of success, of moving up the ladder, any day over
one that's newly minted with no experience other than working at
McDonald's summer jobs.

6 months IS barely more than a summer job.

Show us the references for that new claim of 6 months.







You just denigrated hard work again, above.

No I didn't. I told you what those who hire care about, and 6 months
as a receptionist and broker means nothing to them compared to an MBA,
which school they got it from, what grades they got, what references
they got from their professors.

Show us the references for 6 months. I bet you can't.





and you
should ask yourself what makes you imply that I did. Hard work is
good, and it was good that she had a job, but she didn't work her way
up from secretary like it** sounds. That's all I said.

And you're 100% wrong. She *did* work herself up from a secretary
to CEO. She's not a secretary anymore and she was CEO. QED

Nonsense.

You have the monopoly on nonsense. Of course if it's a lib, like
Hillary, why then you'd crow about her extraordinary achievements
and how she worked herself up from peon to presidential candidate,
wouldn't you?





The problem is that you cant' read. She's not like Finch, who went
from the mail room** to Pres of the Board. She took a a break for two
masters.


Only in Micky's little world does going back to school to get
an MBA wipe out everything you did to get to that point.




**His job washing windows was for a contractor, not directly for World
Wide Widgets.)

It's part of the ladder of success.

It's misleading.


Just because you can't understand the concept doesn't make it
misleading at all.






Why do conservative believe any fool thing that other conservatives
tell them?


You're the fool. It's a demonstrated fact that she worked herself
up from being a secretary to CEO.

No, she didn't . She got 2 masters, probably with her husband paying
the tuition, but certainly not based on money she saved in 6 months.


Who cares who paid for the masters? She first worked as a receptionist,
then a broker, ultimately she was CEO of HP. Those are the FACTS.





I see, so what Hillary did at Yale, why that's on her record of
success. But Fiorina works her way up from secretary to real estate
agent, to CEO, and that's no good.

It would be good but she didn't do that. She stopped and got two
masters.


Only in your irrelevant little world does going back to school to
get an MBA wipe out everything before it. Lots of companies pay
for managers that have had some years of experience to get an MBA, so
they will be more valuable to the company. In fact, that's exactly
how Fiorina got that second degree, at the age of 35, from MIT.
She was an exec with AT&T, which became Lucent, at the time.
So, following the Micky MBA reset button theory, the two decades
of experience prior to her getting that MBA from the MIT Sloan School
doesn't count. Go figure.




And yes, Hillary at Yale is on her record of success, and Fiorina
working as a receptionist and broker is on her record of success, but
she did not work her way up from broker to CEO.

Of course she did idiot. She was a receptionist, broker, manager,
exec and eventually CEO. Only an idiot would believe that it all
happened at one firm or that getting an MBA in the process matters.
Do you think most people think HP is in the real estate business?



Doing that means
she stayed at one company,

Who set that new rule?



or moved laterally or up when moving to
another company,

Which she did.


or getting a degree while continuing to work.

Irrelevant as to whether it was done while continuing to work
or not. According to your nutty theory, if a 35 year old manager
took a year off to get a degree or travel the world, then
takes another job, all that came before gets wiped out.


It
does NOT include leaving the work world, getting 2 masters, and
joining the work world a second time.


Really? Who says so? But I'm beginning to like your dumb theory.
That means that Hillary has no qualification whatever to be president,
because she left work as Sec of State in 2008 and hasn't held a
job since. See how nice that works?




Go figure.



And everyone who
knew her in the Senate, including quite a few Republicans says she was
a hard worker who came to committee meetings and everywhere else very
well prepared.

Tell us what she accomplished in those years in the Senate, beside
filling up space. Tell us her accomplishments as Sec of State.
Reset button? Syria? Libya? Fall of Iraq? Mideast on Fire?

I dont' keep track and this is off topic.

It should be easy to keep track of Hillary's accomplishments, they
are few to non-existent. In fact, that's obviously the real problem,
neither she nor her supporters can come up with any.



Is this why you brought her
up in the first place, so you could change topic? The topic is
that Fiorina didn't work her way up from broker.


Then following your rules, Hillary didn't work herself up from
anything either. Like so many others, there are periods where
Hillary wasn't continuously employed either. The last 4 years,
for example. So, following the Micky rules, Poof!, nothing
previous counts.




Of course her husband was a big advantage to her. So
were the Bush brothers' father, the Rockefellers' father, but you
don't hear Democrats bring that up until conservatives bring up their
corresponding nonsense.


Oh, no. The libs never bring up the Bush's. Never. It's always
conservatives who start things. Good grief.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I am right. You try to make me
wrong by putting "never" in twice, but in common parlance, what I said
was correct.

If you think the libs never went after the Bushs or other Republicans
you're so partisan it's really, really beyond belief.



Any more than my
neighbor would say he worked his way up from mowing lawns to VP of
Boeing.


If you're neighbor did in fact mow lawns, put himself through school,

Now he has to put himself through school? Did Fiorina put herself
through school? You never mentioned it before.


I never said your neighbor example had to put himself through school.
You said if your neighbor mowed lawns and then became a VP at
Boeing, does that count as going from mowing lawns to Boeing.
The answer is YES. We Republicans celebrate work, self-improvement,
moving up.




and wound up VP of Boeing then it's true that he worked himself up
from mowing lawns to VP.

Why do you libs disparage success?

What an incredbily stupid remark by you. There is nothing disparaging
about not including mowing lawns in "working his way up"?

Of course there is. It implies that doing that kind of work, mowing lawns,
earning money, being productive is not part of one's life record
of success.


Do you
think when he gets awards, as he does, that either the person who
introduces him or he says that he worked his way up from mowing lawns?

There you go again, trying to imply that there is something wrong
with earning money by mowing lawns. Of course, when he gets an
award, no one will probably mention it, but they might. If he
wrote an autobiography or someone wrote his biography, I'd expect
it to be in there. Bill O'Reilly occasionally mentions that he
earned money with a bunch of friends painting houses while growing
up on LI. He isn't embarrassed, ashamed, dismissive of it. He's
proud of it!



No they don't. When he comes back to his parents' and sees a
mutual neighbor, he might mention that he mowed my lawn, and I would,
but it's not part of working his way up.

Of course it's a part of working his way up. Why do you libs
denigrate hard work, being productive?




There was nothing upward
about it. It didnt' get him into college. His grades did, and it
didn't help get him even his first job. Other things did.

How the hell do you know what did or didn't get him into college?
I don't know how much money he made, or what exactly "mowing lawns"
constitutes. But if he had a business, made money running a small
mowing operation during summers, why the hell wouldn't he list
that as an accomplishment on his college application? Or if they
asked in a college interview, what did you do last summer, what
should he do, lie? Be ashamed of it? It's a very typical question
for a college interviewer to ask. And I'd sure look more favorably
on the applicant who said I made money by mowing lawns 6 days a week
than I would on the applicant that said I went to the beach.





**The article said she was a broker, which this paragraph says may be
a mere salesperson who assists the agent. Maybe someone can find out
the law in California and if she was really a broker or just an
assistant or a saleswoman.

WTF don't you go do that instead of posting pure speculative rubbish?

Because for the issue at hand, it doesn't matter if she was a broker
or not.

I see, so now it doesn't matter. Last post you said it did matter
and suggested someone go research it for you. I'd say it does matter,
because being
a real estate broker is a step up from being a receptionist and I'll
bet you that you do have to pass a test, be licensed in CA. Any tests,
licensing for receptionists?



It just occurred to me, when I remembered what an unusual
liar she is, that she might well be either exaggerating or carefully
choosing an ambiguous word to describe her second job there.


Yes, and look how it's embarrassed you here. Obviously the real
facts don't matter, just how much FUD you can spread based on
speculation and bogus claims.

Oren posted for all of us...



On Mon, 2 May 2016 15:28:02 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

I think we all probably looked better in those days.

Not me, I've always been ugly.

So I guess you weren't graced with a large pecker. Can't lick your
eyebrows, either.

You are correct in all counts. If you want to check send me a private jet
and limo to and from your casa. You can look but no touching.

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sun, 01 May 2016 21:02:04 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/01/2016 01:11 PM, Oren wrote:
If I had my rather's, I'd rather strip search Carly and let the rookie
examine Hillary's neither regions and orifices for cooties and
contraband.

Hillary would look fetching in an orange jumpsuit but if I had to do a
strip search I'd consider an immediate career switch to fast food
specialist.

Think outside the box [no pun] do a few up skirt photos and you could
rich :-/

I think that aspect of the business would be a non opener. Is there any such
prevert that would wanna see it? I know I wouldn't but I can't account for
your taste (ugh)...

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...



On Sun, 01 May 2016 21:02:04 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/01/2016 01:11 PM, Oren wrote:
If I had my rather's, I'd rather strip search Carly and let the rookie
examine Hillary's neither regions and orifices for cooties and
contraband.

Hillary would look fetching in an orange jumpsuit but if I had to do a
strip search I'd consider an immediate career switch to fast food
specialist.

Think outside the box [no pun] do a few up skirt photos and you could
rich :-/

Excuse my last post. I thought we were referring to the Billary. One might
make a go of it with Carly.

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:53:12 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

. One might make a go of it with Carly.

My bride won't give me a permission slip or a hall pass.

Oren posted for all of us...



On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:53:12 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

. One might make a go of it with Carly.

My bride won't give me a permission slip or a hall pass.

In that case contact Willy Klinton. He's the ticket and he'll explain what
is and isn't sex.

--
Tekkie

On 05/08/2016 07:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Sure, there is an angry mob that represents less than 10% of all voters
that is behind Trump. You can't win the presidency with just that.
And thankfully, Trump is showing no signs of going beyond.

The angry mob that convinced the rest of the candidates to pack their
bags and go home was only 10%?

Yes, I want a strong president. But I don't want a maniac clown. And
I haven't left the party. I will vote the GOP down ticket, but never
for Trump. What do you think Trump is going to do to the GOP down
ticket? There is no Trump there, just the GOP that Trump is running
against.

Don't forget to send you dues in to Cuckservatives for Hillary.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 12:39:50 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 07:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Sure, there is an angry mob that represents less than 10% of all voters
that is behind Trump. You can't win the presidency with just that.
And thankfully, Trump is showing no signs of going beyond.

The angry mob that convinced the rest of the candidates to pack their
bags and go home was only 10%?


Less than 10%. There are 146,000 registered voters in the US,
126,000 voted in 2012. Only about 10 mil have voted for Trump so far.


Yes, I want a strong president. But I don't want a maniac clown. And
I haven't left the party. I will vote the GOP down ticket, but never
for Trump. What do you think Trump is going to do to the GOP down
ticket? There is no Trump there, just the GOP that Trump is running
against.

Don't forget to send you dues in to Cuckservatives for Hillary.

It's possible Hillary will be indicted and out. Or we could see a
third party candidate emerge too.

On 05/08/2016 01:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Less than 10%. There are 146,000 registered voters in the US,
126,000 voted in 2012. Only about 10 mil have voted for Trump so far.

As of today, Trump's total is 10,647,150 votes and the fat lady hasn't
sung yet. In 2012 Romney had 9,947,433 when the gavel fell. Of course,
Mittens did lose...

It's possible Hillary will be indicted and out. Or we could see a
third party candidate emerge too.

Little Billy Kristol seems to be having a problem sucking someone into
his fantasy league.

"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

'The Times They Are A'Changin'' Bob Dylan

http://bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/

Paul Turncoat Ryan better be watching his six too.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 5:28:19 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 05/08/2016 01:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Less than 10%. There are 146,000 registered voters in the US,
126,000 voted in 2012. Only about 10 mil have voted for Trump so far.

As of today, Trump's total is 10,647,150 votes and the fat lady hasn't
sung yet. In 2012 Romney had 9,947,433 when the gavel fell. Of course,
Mittens did lose...


So what.
It doesn't change the math that Trump only has 10 mil out of 146 mil
registered voters or 126 mil that voted in 2012. It's a very small
section of voters that are driving Trump.

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2016 07:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Sure, there is an angry mob that represents less than 10% of all voters
that is behind Trump. You can't win the presidency with just that.
And thankfully, Trump is showing no signs of going beyond.

The angry mob that convinced the rest of the candidates to pack their
bags and go home was only 10%?

Yes, I want a strong president. But I don't want a maniac clown. And
I haven't left the party. I will vote the GOP down ticket, but never
for Trump. What do you think Trump is going to do to the GOP down
ticket? There is no Trump there, just the GOP that Trump is running
against.

Don't forget to send you dues in to Cuckservatives for Hillary.

"rbowman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

'The Times They Are A'Changin'' Bob Dylan

http://bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/

Paul Turncoat Ryan better be watching his six too.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/ActOfLove1.jpg

On 05/09/2016 12:19 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"rbowman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

'The Times They Are A'Changin'' Bob Dylan

http://bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/

Paul Turncoat Ryan better be watching his six too.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/ActOfLove1.jpg



I don't know if having Palin on your side is a plus or minus but I'm
hoping Ryan loses his primary race. He's brought a lot of bacon home to
Wisconsin though and they may like the lying little weasel.

On 05/09/2016 02:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You're back to looking at how many primary votes Trump got
out of primary voters. All I'm pointing out,*again* is that
he got 10 mil but 126 mil voted in the 2012 general election.
He can't win a general election with 10 mil people, alienating
so many of the rest of the ~126 mil.

I get it that he has alienated you personally but I will point out
*AGAIN* that he is on track to win more primary votes than any
Republican candidate *EVER*. By your logic no Republican could have ever
won. In the best of years slightly less than half of the voters loathe
the winner. In the worst of years you have the Goldwater disaster.

I have no problem with alienating some of the people who probably can't
or won't vote either. If the illegals don't like him, they can go back
to wherever they came from. Same for the Muslims. I guess we're stuck
with BLM but it's time they realize they are a minority and STFU. The
neocons that got us into the current mess? Screw them. The sellouts that
want to globalize the economy to the detriment of the country? When they
talk about enemies foreign and domestic, they're the domestic version as
far as I'm concerned.

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2000, but
I might just break the streak this year. Maybe Trump is blowing smoke
but at least it's the right color smoke. I guess I can go for the hope
and change bait one more time. Something has to give before America is a
third world colony.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:18:41 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 05/09/2016 02:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
You're back to looking at how many primary votes Trump got
out of primary voters. All I'm pointing out,*again* is that
he got 10 mil but 126 mil voted in the 2012 general election.
He can't win a general election with 10 mil people, alienating
so many of the rest of the ~126 mil.

I get it that he has alienated you personally but I will point out
*AGAIN* that he is on track to win more primary votes than any
Republican candidate *EVER*. By your logic no Republican could have ever
won.

Not true at all. He hasn't just alienated me, he's alienated a
whole lot of Republicans, conservatives, Latinos, and women.
What you can't understand is it's possible to appeal to a narrow
base, an angry mob of people that aren't too bright, get them
all stirred up, have them come out to the primary in record numbers
and then LOSE the general election because that's all you have,
the angry mob and most of the rest will not vote for you.



In the best of years slightly less than half of the voters loathe
the winner. In the worst of years you have the Goldwater disaster.

I have no problem with alienating some of the people who probably can't
or won't vote either. If the illegals don't like him, they can go back
to wherever they came from. Same for the Muslims. I guess we're stuck
with BLM but it's time they realize they are a minority and STFU.

Sure, typical, sounds like your on the xenophobic Trump train. It's not
the illegals that are going to vote for Hillary, it's the Latino CITIZENS.
Trump has an 85% negative among them. They aren't going to leave their
country, neither are the Muslims.


The
neocons that got us into the current mess? Screw them. The sellouts that
want to globalize the economy to the detriment of the country? When they
talk about enemies foreign and domestic, they're the domestic version as
far as I'm concerned.

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2000, but
I might just break the streak this year. Maybe Trump is blowing smoke
but at least it's the right color smoke. I guess I can go for the hope
and change bait one more time. Something has to give before America is a
third world colony.

I suppose you're also cool with him suggesting that we could default on the
national debt, negotiate to only pay back part of it, like he would do
at one of his failed casinos?

On Sun, 08 May 2016 15:29:30 -0600, rbowman wrote
in

'The Times They Are A'Changin'' Bob Dylan

http://bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/

One of my favorites. I still listen to his (pre-1970) music.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 05/09/2016 09:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Sure, typical, sounds like your on the xenophobic Trump train. It's not
the illegals that are going to vote for Hillary, it's the Latino CITIZENS.
Trump has an 85% negative among them. They aren't going to leave their
country, neither are the Muslims.

Romney got 27% of the Hispanic vote. Trump may do a little worse but
Romney would have needed about 75% of the Hispanics to have won. But now
let's have a little reality check. Over 20% of the population of Florida
is Hispanic. Marco Rubio is the Hispanic junior Senator from Florida.
Maybe the Hispanics couldn't decide which Hispanic candidate they
preferred but Trump walked away with 45.7% of the vote and Little Marco
sucked it up.

The Republican brainstorm after 2012 was 'if we can just win the
Hispanic vote...' Ain't gonna happen.

If Hillary wants the blacks, Hispanics, and LGBT vote she can have them.
Actually Clinton is a good case in point. She did very well in the
southern states with the greater number of black voters -- the states
that will go blue when hell freezes over.

On 05/09/2016 10:43 AM, CRNG wrote:
One of my favorites. I still listen to his (pre-1970) music.

Yeah, 'Self Portrait' was a harbinger of the coming disasters.