breitbart
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
The same FOX News that announced Romney would win big? Oh, I see why:
In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world's largest personal computer manufacturer. HP gained market share following the merger and subsequently laid off 30,000 of its American workers. By the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than they had separately before the merger. As of February 9, 2005, HP stock had lost more than half of its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector. On that date, Hewlett-Packard's board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina
In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world's largest personal computer manufacturer. HP gained market share following the merger and subsequently laid off 30,000 of its American workers. By the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than they had separately before the merger. As of February 9, 2005, HP stock had lost more than half of its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector. On that date, Hewlett-Packard's board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
I followed this story as it happened because I was taking a "hands-on" approach to my finances. Personally, I thought Carly got a raw deal from HP management. This was long before she expressed any interest in politics or the Republican Party. She didn't cause the dot.com bubble to burst, but was the victim of it.
The things she did at HP are still going on in America with other companies. As an example, every employee at the multi-national aerospace company I work at has an outsourcing goal. What this means is we are directed to outsource as much work as we can to India, including our own jobs. At age 65 with health issues for me and my wife, my options are limited.
But that's just my opinion.
I saw this coming a long time ago, but didn't take it seriously. When I was in graduate school, in systems, some of the decision courses were taken by MBA students. We used to laugh about how stupid they were. "A great manager can manage in complete ignorance." "Employees are just another resource."
And so on. Their only virtue was lowering the curve.
I figured no employer in his right mind would hire them. And now, that's the way things work.
And they were smart enough to make sure executive compensation was decoupled from performance. Maybe they weren't such idiots after all.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Golden parachutes for executives have been going on as long as I remember. I read a couple of good books somewhat related to the subject, my favorite being The Peter Principal.
The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory 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." [from Wikipedia]
The examples of this in business and politics is beyond measure. When non-technical managers are placed in charge of technical people, the outcomes are usually disasterous. P&G, Raytheon and Monsanto immediately come to mind.
The auto industry. Photographic equipment. Pretty much everything. At one time, industries were run by people who loved their product. Even insurance companies at one time felt they had a mission.
Check out Haley Fiske (president of Metropolitan) who was a strong advocate of insurance as a way of reducing misery. He was always controversial, promoting awareness of STDs in a time when you weren't even supposed to talk about it.
He instructed his claims people to warn those receiving life insurance payments, about crooks who would take advantage of them for their money.
But he loved insurance. Henry Ford loved automobiles. Oscar Barnack loved cameras. And so on. Then the MBAs took control and ran companies into the ground just to loot them.
If you want to bring down China fast, endow all their universities with MBA programs.
does china have unions?
No, the government is now mostly controlled by large corporations. Workers who try to improve their condition are arrested or blackisted so that they can't get a job. It's what the Koch brothers would call heaven.
Pretty much what historians refer to as the robber baron era in American history.
If his former employee judge recuses himself from Perry's felony trial, Perry will end up negotiating with Bubba as to which bunk he gets.
It looks like the fix is in. But there's some pressure to change that:
Former Governor Rick Perry's appeal of his criminal case just became a little more interesting. According to the Texas Tribune, one of the judges picked to hear the appeal has many ties with Perry. Apparently, Judge Bob Pemberton "worked for the former governor, representing him in court as his deputy general counsel. After that job, Perry appointed him to the Third Court of Appeals, which is now considering a request from Perry's lawyers to dismiss the abuse-of-power charges against him."
The connection between Perry and the appellate justice also includes the judge clerking for one of Perry's current attorneys, and according to state records, gave $1,000 to Perry's 2002 re-election campaign. Although Perry's appellate attorneys do not think that these connections warrant a recusal of the judge, others may see things differently. As with most states, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires a judge to recuse himself when "the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Despite Perry's lawyers' position, many people will likely find that this history calls into question the judge's impartiality.
http://www.siskolegal.com/apps/blog...ustice-in-rick-perry-s-appeal-recuse-himself-
Probably not going to happen, though. If this judge bails, it could be the end of the line for Perry.
It looks like the fix is in. But there's some pressure to change that:
Former Governor Rick Perry's appeal of his criminal case just became a little more interesting. According to the Texas Tribune, one of the judges picked to hear the appeal has many ties with Perry. Apparently, Judge Bob Pemberton "worked for the former governor, representing him in court as his deputy general counsel. After that job, Perry appointed him to the Third Court of Appeals, which is now considering a request from Perry's lawyers to dismiss the abuse-of-power charges against him."
The connection between Perry and the appellate justice also includes the judge clerking for one of Perry's current attorneys, and according to state records, gave $1,000 to Perry's 2002 re-election campaign. Although Perry's appellate attorneys do not think that these connections warrant a recusal of the judge, others may see things differently. As with most states, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires a judge to recuse himself when "the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Despite Perry's lawyers' position, many people will likely find that this history calls into question the judge's impartiality.
http://www.siskolegal.com/apps/blog...ustice-in-rick-perry-s-appeal-recuse-himself-
Probably not going to happen, though. If this judge bails, it could be the end of the line for Perry.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Would that you cared about the thousands killed by Obama's mishandling of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Hillary's culpability in the Benghazi deaths and her unlawful secret e-mails. But that's just not important to a "born-again" leftist.
I've never found much credibility in the notion that Obama forced Bush into those wars, or that he somehow was responsible for the bungling that let to all those Amerian casualties, or the power vacuum that produced ISIS.
He did pull out of Iraq, but the date was determined by a treaty negotiated and signed by Bush.
When the House cut funds for embassy security, against her advice, she argued that it would put our people in danger. Turns out, she was right.
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html
Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But Clinton did ask for better security and the republicans did actually cut funding below previous levels.
That being said, she could have diverted funding from other embassies to protect the consulate in Benghazi. But if the embassy from which she would have taken the funds was attacked, what do you think the republicans who cut security funding have said then? Still, that's probably not a good reason not to have taken action.
I'm a bit disappointed that she did what the republicans have done.
Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
But then it's like Obama trying to continue parts of the Patriot Act. If you give republicans unwarranted power, don't think the democrats won't seek to use it when they take control. Human nature. I don't plan on voting for her. But not for that. For her support of abortion.
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I expect that if you give people unchecked power, they will abuse it.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
I love watching radical leftists rewrite history to suit their own agenda. Do they actually think they are fooling anyone? I'll just add The Barbarian to my Ignore list so I don't have to put up with the lies he spins.
republicanchick
New member
nope
