On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:



$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic

It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.


--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:37:05 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic

It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.

What's your point? I just said that.

--Vic

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic

It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.



Yes, for a top flight lawyer doing lawyer jobs. Not for an not needed
position at a hospital, where you get a 100% raise when your spouse becomes
a State Senator. Sounds more like bribery!

Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic
It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.



Yes, for a top flight lawyer doing lawyer jobs. Not for an not needed
position at a hospital, where you get a 100% raise when your spouse becomes
a State Senator. Sounds more like bribery!




A top-flight rainmaker lawyer is going to be earning a hell of a lot
more than a couple of hundred thou in NY, Chi, DC, LA, SF, et cetera.

Since you have no way of knowing whether Mrs. Obama was "needed" or not,
or what she accomplished, your opinion on this matter is worth your
usual nothing.

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic
It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.



Yes, for a top flight lawyer doing lawyer jobs. Not for an not needed
position at a hospital, where you get a 100% raise when your spouse
becomes a State Senator. Sounds more like bribery!


A top-flight rainmaker lawyer is going to be earning a hell of a lot more
than a couple of hundred thou in NY, Chi, DC, LA, SF, et cetera.

Since you have no way of knowing whether Mrs. Obama was "needed" or not,
or what she accomplished, your opinion on this matter is worth your usual
nothing.

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

You mean a good bribe getting lawyer earns more in NYC? She got a 100%
raise when her husband got elected.. A bribe.

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:31:38 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:46:22 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

Oh, come on now. You can't possibly think that the
Bush/Cheney/Halliburtion/Dubai debacle was on the up and up. No one
except a complete opposite of Harry could think that!!!!!!
Former President Clinton had a pretty sweet consulting deal with Dubai
too.
And China... can you say "How much to sleep in the Rincoln bedroom?"
It is no accident that WalMart doubled it's market share in the 90s.
They are from Bentonville Arkansas, a suburb of Little Rock.

Aren't republicans FOR free trade? Or is that with certain qualifiers?
I don't have a problem with free trade,
The real question was if this was "fair" trade.
We pile environmental, labor and safety laws on our corporations (not
a bad idea) without imposing those on the competition (the bad part),
then wonder why they kick our ass.
Ah, so then it's not free trade if we put a bunch of restrictions on it,
not is it? If the cost of environmental and safety laws make us
non-competitive in a certain sector, it's time to re-invent.
BTW this trend still continues. All of the upcoming "carbon" and
existing CFC protocols that favor countries like China and Mexico who
are largely exempt.
So? First of all that's the personification of "free trade". I take it
you really don't want free trade at all, you just don't want anyone in
the U.S. bound by any rules. Tell me, what ARE Mexico and China's
environmental, safety and labor laws anyway? Don't say they are
non-existent because that's not true.

Do you have a problem with the unions getting "busted" because all
the jobs are in China now?
Nope.

China and Mexico's environmental, safety and labor laws may exist but
they are certainly not enforced. That puts us at a severe disadvantage
so the trade is not "fair".
This will really be true if the cap and tax bill passes, unless we put
a huge carbon tariff on all imported Chinese products, based on the
amount of coal they burn. That will not happen

Sure it's "fair". It may not be fair to YOU however. You can't have it
both ways. Either you want free trade or you don't.

NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:31:38 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:46:22 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:

Oh, come on now. You can't possibly think that the
Bush/Cheney/Halliburtion/Dubai debacle was on the up and up. No
one
except a complete opposite of Harry could think that!!!!!!
Former President Clinton had a pretty sweet consulting deal with
Dubai
too.
And China... can you say "How much to sleep in the Rincoln bedroom?"
It is no accident that WalMart doubled it's market share in the 90s.
They are from Bentonville Arkansas, a suburb of Little Rock.
Aren't republicans FOR free trade? Or is that with certain qualifiers?
I don't have a problem with free trade, The real question was if
this was "fair" trade.
We pile environmental, labor and safety laws on our corporations (not
a bad idea) without imposing those on the competition (the bad part),
then wonder why they kick our ass.
Ah, so then it's not free trade if we put a bunch of restrictions on
it, not is it? If the cost of environmental and safety laws make us
non-competitive in a certain sector, it's time to re-invent.
BTW this trend still continues. All of the upcoming "carbon" and
existing CFC protocols that favor countries like China and Mexico who
are largely exempt.
So? First of all that's the personification of "free trade". I take
it you really don't want free trade at all, you just don't want
anyone in the U.S. bound by any rules. Tell me, what ARE Mexico and
China's environmental, safety and labor laws anyway? Don't say they
are non-existent because that's not true.

Do you have a problem with the unions getting "busted" because all
the jobs are in China now?
Nope.

China and Mexico's environmental, safety and labor laws may exist but
they are certainly not enforced. That puts us at a severe disadvantage
so the trade is not "fair". This will really be true if the cap and
tax bill passes, unless we put
a huge carbon tariff on all imported Chinese products, based on the
amount of coal they burn. That will not happen

Sure it's "fair". It may not be fair to YOU however. You can't have it
both ways. Either you want free trade or you don't.

More about China's labor laws:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/wo...4.6417118.html

Mexican labor laws:

http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/purchase/mexus.htm

Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:34 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:


$317,000.00 is a LOT of money... everywhere... and if was for a job
that didn't need to exist... it was pretty clear that it was akin to
payola.

Those "in the know" and those working in much of the corporate world
don't think $317k is a lot of money.
They just figure it's what they deserve, since their pals have similar
salaries.
Everybody has their own reality.

--Vic
It's *not* a lot of money for a high-powered, well-connected lawyer in a
big city.


Yes, for a top flight lawyer doing lawyer jobs. Not for an not needed
position at a hospital, where you get a 100% raise when your spouse
becomes a State Senator. Sounds more like bribery!

A top-flight rainmaker lawyer is going to be earning a hell of a lot more
than a couple of hundred thou in NY, Chi, DC, LA, SF, et cetera.

Since you have no way of knowing whether Mrs. Obama was "needed" or not,
or what she accomplished, your opinion on this matter is worth your usual
nothing.

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

You mean a good bribe getting lawyer earns more in NYC? She got a 100%
raise when her husband got elected.. A bribe.




D'oh.

--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

NotNow wrote:
Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:32:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:25:00 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
Jim wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:
From the website of Free Library, at
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Some+e...e.-a0192591436



"Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama,
for example. The University of Chicago Medical Center hired
her in 2002 to run "programs for community relations,
neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity,
and minority contracting." In 2005 the hospital raised her
salary from $120,000 to $317,000--nearly twice what her
husband made as a U.S. senator. Oh, did we mention that he had
just become a U.S. senator? He sure had. Requested a $1
million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to
network, Michelle! But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the
hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that
be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?
We can think of only one explanation: Roland Burris's wife
wasn't interested."


Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliberton, quit to become Vice
President, but still gets "deferred compensation," bonuses and
held stock until 2006.

Halliburton received no bid contracts and cost plus contracts
for their work in the Iraq war.

Profiting from a war, especially one you were instrumental in
starting, should **** you off.

But it doesn't. Everything is Obama.

War profiteering used to be a bad thing, but it's ok now. As
long as you are a Republican, that is.

Don't be an...... Clinton used Haliburton in the Balkans too,
for the same reason.. Nobody else does what they do! Period...
That wasn't a "no bid" contract.
Who bid against them?
Like most of the criticism, the Haliburton issue is a red herring
manufactured by the opposition... Like most of these issues, they
are criminalizing "government as usual", and in this case, have
done exactly the same thing themselves... IE Tom Delay...

This is only possible because of the full support of the Media. we
are already seeing censorship and the stomping of the constitution
with new rules against criticism in the senate and senators
political speech, next it will be the rest of the media, just like
I said long ago. We are in huge trouble..
Oh, come on now. You can't possibly think that the
Bush/Cheney/Halliburtion/Dubai debacle was on the up and up. No one
except a complete opposite of Harry could think that!!!!!!


Former President Clinton had a pretty sweet consulting deal with Dubai
too. I see little difference between the Bushes and the Clintons.

Shhhhhhh... You are not supposed to mention that!

Using your previous analogy, how many criminal charges were filed?

About the same number that have been filed against Halliburton and/or
Cheney...