Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I had an employer fight my unemployment claim once many years ago. I took the job on the promise they would open an office that was 45 miles from my home instead of the 80 miles where the main office was. After several months commuting more than two hours each way (sometimes up to six hours a day), it became clear they had no intention of opening the second office and were just stringing me along. Fortunately, the judge who review the case realized I would have never taken the job if it had meant driving 80 miles each way every day (right through LA btw) and awarded my claim. I collected only long enough to get another job (a few months).
true, but if someone is in a job for which that are not competent, they should be fired... immediately. Bush and Rumsfeld both should have been gone long ago.
One day as the Big Red Rooster was scratching in a field, he found a grain of wheat.
"This wheat should be planted," he said. "Dog you will supervise the planting, Duck you will do the planting and sorry Cat there is no work for you."
Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.
"The wheat is ripe," said the Big Rooster. "Dog, tell Duck to cut the wheat!"
"Ok" said the Dog.
"Duck, cut the wheat!," said the Dog. And the Duck did it.
When the wheat was cut, the Big Red Rooster said, "Dog thresh the wheat!"
"Duck, thresh the wheat!," said the Dog.
"I'm working 12 hours a day, seven days a week and am exhuasted. I need help." said the Duck.
"If you can't do it Duck, Cat over there will gladly take your job," said the Dog.
"Then I will do it," said Duck and she did.
... blah blah blah..
At last the Duck made and baked the bread. Then the Big Rooster said, "Give that all to me!"
Then the Rooster took all the bread. He then gave 20% of that bread to the Dog for his managing the Duck. The Dog in turned gave 2 percent to the Duck for all his hard work... just barely enough to live on. And the Cat said "Please can I have some bread? My kittens are hungry!" And the Dog said, while the Rooster nodded, "You lazy bum! You don't deserve any bread!"
personally I like the examples set by Ghandi and Martin Luther King... so my answer would be that people in public office have a greater responsibility to the people they serve but should try to balance that with their own personal needs
that's quite a leap from what he posted
sadly not suprising the G8 Nations haven't lived up to their promises.
I've seen that time and again... sad there are so many like that
I call that self serving, selfish, etc
Bush is the leader/figurehead for those in power who are responsible for many of the problems
people in public office, and especially the President of the United States, have a responsibility to those he serves
then aren't you back to ergo's self motivation?
New Limits Set Over Marketing for Cigarettes
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: August 18, 2006
Her ruling said they were shown in a nine-month trial to have “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A federal judge ordered strict new limitations on tobacco marketing on Thursday after finding that cigarette makers deserved to be punished for a decades-old conspiracy to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.
But in her ruling here in a racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the industry, Judge Kessler also had good news for the leading tobacco companies.
Judge Kessler ordered the companies to stop labeling cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” or “natural” or with other “deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.”
She rejected a government proposal that the industry be forced to underwrite a multibillion-dollar program to help smokers quit and to educate young people about the hazards of tobacco. Judge Kessler said that under a recent appeals court ruling she had no power to impose such large financial damages.
The judge said she regretted not being able to punish the companies further.
Her ruling said they were shown in a nine-month trial to have “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
Her 1,742-page decision amounted to a detailed history of the efforts of the industry — and, notably, its lawyers — over almost 50 years to confuse the public about a danger that was evident to the health professions.
Cigarette makers, the judge said, profit from “selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss and a profound burden our national health care system.”
Although the failure to impose tougher penalties disappointed antitobacco groups, the decision could force tobacco companies to overhaul some ways of doing business, especially in marketing and advertising cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Judge Kessler also ordered the companies to begin an advertising campaign in newspapers and on television networks on “the adverse health effects of smoking.”
The remedies apply to Batco; Brown & Williamson; Lorillard; Philip Morris and its parent, Altria; and R. J. Reynolds, part of Reynolds American. Another defendant, Liggett, was excluded. The judge said it did “not have a reasonable likelihood of future violations.”
The Justice Department, which brought the case in 1999 in the Clinton administration and had seemed less eager to pursue it under President Bush, said in a statement it was disappointed that the court did not impose all of the penalties the department had recommended.
But the department said that it was “hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the court have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American people.’’
In a statement on Thursday night, William S. Ohlemeyer, an Altria vice president and lawyer, said the companies believed that many parts of the decision were “not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial, and appear to be constitutionally impermissible or infringe on Congress’ sole right to provide for the regulation of tobacco products.”
Wall Street analysts hailed the case as a big victory for the companies. “There’s nothing in this ruling that is going to hurt the profitability of the businesses,” said David Adelman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley.
Mr. Adelman said the ruling threw into question the fate of major brands like Marlboro Lights and Camel Lights. Sales of light brands constitute more than 50 percent of the cigarette market in the United States, according to Mr. Adelman.
Analysts also said they believed that the companies had strong legal grounds for a successful appeal.
“The likelihood that the ‘light’ issue ends here is low,” said Marc Greenberg, an analyst at Deutsche Bank. “I think this will get appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and there may even be issues here for the Supreme Court.”
William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an antismoking group linked to the government suit, said he had hoped for tougher penalties. But Mr. Corr said he was pleased that that the judge had identified the tobacco companies as a “rogue industry” that was guilty of “50 years of lying to the American people.”
Mr. Adelman said he did not think that the companies would be damaged by the finding that they were deceptive. “This industry is not a bunch of Boy Scouts,” he said. “It’s an industry that was not well regarded by the public, anyway. So I don’t think there are significant public relations or legal ramifications from the decision.”
The decision was issued after American stock markets had closed. In early after-hours trading, the stocks of Altria, Reynolds American and other tobacco makers rose.
Among the companies named in the suit, Altria, the country’s largest maker of cigarettes, stands to gain the most, as the ruling clears the way for a much anticipated spinoff of its Kraft Foods unit.
The Associated Press reported that a spokesman for Reynolds, Mark Smith, said executives were “gratified that the court did not award unjustified and extraordinarily expensive monetary penalties.”
Mr. Smith said Reynolds was disappointed by other parts of the ruling, which its lawyers will analyze before suggesting action.
Representatives at Brown & Williamson did not return calls.
Before the ruling, tobacco companies had won a string of victories in cases involving the dangers of smoking. Last month, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a decision to toss out a $145 billion judgment in a class-action suit. In December, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out a similar $10 billion judgment against Philip Morris.
Cigarette makers have argued that it was unfair for the federal government to seek additional penalties in light of their $246 billion settlement in 1998 with state governments.
The federal case dates from 1999, when President Bill Clinton promised in his State of the Union address to unleash the Justice Department to bring a civil racketeering suit against tobacco manufacturers. The suit filed that year was one of the government’s largest in the scope of charges and the resources devoted to it, accusing cigarette makers of decades of fraud, deceptive advertising and dangerous marketing.
But the election of Mr. Bush, a major recipient of campaign donations from the industry, brought a re-examination of the case. John Ashcroft, the new attorney general, called the suit weak and pushed for an out-of-court settlement.
Career prosecutors working on the case protested a Justice Department decision last year to scale back its request for the companies to finance the national stop-smoking campaign, to $10 billion from $130 billion.
The department said it was forced to reduce the amount because of an appeals court decision last year that blocked the department from trying to seize ill-gotten profits from the tobacco industry’s past practices. At the time, Judge Kessler said the appeals court decision was a “body blow to the government’s case.”
Melanie Warner contributed reporting from Boulder, Colo., for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18tobacco.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
OT: New Limits Set Over Marketing for Cigarettes
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: August 18, 2006
<< just a follow up on why the tabacco companies are slime. this isn't new either >>
Her ruling said they were shown in a nine-month trial to have “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A federal judge ordered strict new limitations on tobacco marketing on Thursday after finding that cigarette makers deserved to be punished for a decades-old conspiracy to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.
But in her ruling here in a racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the industry, Judge Kessler also had good news for the leading tobacco companies.
Judge Kessler ordered the companies to stop labeling cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” or “natural” or with other “deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.”
She rejected a government proposal that the industry be forced to underwrite a multibillion-dollar program to help smokers quit and to educate young people about the hazards of tobacco. Judge Kessler said that under a recent appeals court ruling she had no power to impose such large financial damages.
The judge said she regretted not being able to punish the companies further.
Her ruling said they were shown in a nine-month trial to have “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
Her 1,742-page decision amounted to a detailed history of the efforts of the industry — and, notably, its lawyers — over almost 50 years to confuse the public about a danger that was evident to the health professions.
Cigarette makers, the judge said, profit from “selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss and a profound burden our national health care system.”
Although the failure to impose tougher penalties disappointed antitobacco groups, the decision could force tobacco companies to overhaul some ways of doing business, especially in marketing and advertising cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Judge Kessler also ordered the companies to begin an advertising campaign in newspapers and on television networks on “the adverse health effects of smoking.”
The remedies apply to Batco; Brown & Williamson; Lorillard; Philip Morris and its parent, Altria; and R. J. Reynolds, part of Reynolds American. Another defendant, Liggett, was excluded. The judge said it did “not have a reasonable likelihood of future violations.”
The Justice Department, which brought the case in 1999 in the Clinton administration and had seemed less eager to pursue it under President Bush, said in a statement it was disappointed that the court did not impose all of the penalties the department had recommended.
But the department said that it was “hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the court have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American people.’’
In a statement on Thursday night, William S. Ohlemeyer, an Altria vice president and lawyer, said the companies believed that many parts of the decision were “not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial, and appear to be constitutionally impermissible or infringe on Congress’ sole right to provide for the regulation of tobacco products.”
Wall Street analysts hailed the case as a big victory for the companies. “There’s nothing in this ruling that is going to hurt the profitability of the businesses,” said David Adelman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley.
Mr. Adelman said the ruling threw into question the fate of major brands like Marlboro Lights and Camel Lights. Sales of light brands constitute more than 50 percent of the cigarette market in the United States, according to Mr. Adelman.
Analysts also said they believed that the companies had strong legal grounds for a successful appeal.
“The likelihood that the ‘light’ issue ends here is low,” said Marc Greenberg, an analyst at Deutsche Bank. “I think this will get appealed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and there may even be issues here for the Supreme Court.”
William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an antismoking group linked to the government suit, said he had hoped for tougher penalties. But Mr. Corr said he was pleased that that the judge had identified the tobacco companies as a “rogue industry” that was guilty of “50 years of lying to the American people.”
Mr. Adelman said he did not think that the companies would be damaged by the finding that they were deceptive. “This industry is not a bunch of Boy Scouts,” he said. “It’s an industry that was not well regarded by the public, anyway. So I don’t think there are significant public relations or legal ramifications from the decision.”
The decision was issued after American stock markets had closed. In early after-hours trading, the stocks of Altria, Reynolds American and other tobacco makers rose.
Among the companies named in the suit, Altria, the country’s largest maker of cigarettes, stands to gain the most, as the ruling clears the way for a much anticipated spinoff of its Kraft Foods unit.
The Associated Press reported that a spokesman for Reynolds, Mark Smith, said executives were “gratified that the court did not award unjustified and extraordinarily expensive monetary penalties.”
Mr. Smith said Reynolds was disappointed by other parts of the ruling, which its lawyers will analyze before suggesting action.
Representatives at Brown & Williamson did not return calls.
Before the ruling, tobacco companies had won a string of victories in cases involving the dangers of smoking. Last month, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a decision to toss out a $145 billion judgment in a class-action suit. In December, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out a similar $10 billion judgment against Philip Morris.
Cigarette makers have argued that it was unfair for the federal government to seek additional penalties in light of their $246 billion settlement in 1998 with state governments.
The federal case dates from 1999, when President Bill Clinton promised in his State of the Union address to unleash the Justice Department to bring a civil racketeering suit against tobacco manufacturers. The suit filed that year was one of the government’s largest in the scope of charges and the resources devoted to it, accusing cigarette makers of decades of fraud, deceptive advertising and dangerous marketing.
But the election of Mr. Bush, a major recipient of campaign donations from the industry, brought a re-examination of the case. John Ashcroft, the new attorney general, called the suit weak and pushed for an out-of-court settlement.
Career prosecutors working on the case protested a Justice Department decision last year to scale back its request for the companies to finance the national stop-smoking campaign, to $10 billion from $130 billion.
The department said it was forced to reduce the amount because of an appeals court decision last year that blocked the department from trying to seize ill-gotten profits from the tobacco industry’s past practices. At the time, Judge Kessler said the appeals court decision was a “body blow to the government’s case.”
Melanie Warner contributed reporting from Boulder, Colo., for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18tobacco.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
responsible to what? to whom?
good for you for making the choice!
I couldn't get myself to quit such a good paying job... but eventually they closed the office and the choice was made for me. One woman in the office put it perfectly... she said "I've never been so happy to lose a job!"
It was one of the best things to happen to me...
good advice.
I stayed at my last job several years too long and as a result, near the end, it was even effecting my health.
who is Hannibal? where's the link to your source?
then you also recognized his post as illogical!
“No, these are people that are politically driven. They want to impose their vision on other people.
sounds like the religious right in this country
score one for the constitution
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
<< yeah! finally >>
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer
DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate end to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The Justice Department said it is appealing the ruling.
"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.
Gonzales maintained that the program is legal and useful.
""We've had numerous statements by leaders of the intelligence community about the effectiveness of the program in protecting America," he said.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling."
"The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist," Snow said.
The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice request for a stay pending its appeal. A hearing on the motion was set for Sept. 7, Snow said.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.
He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
While siding with the ACLU on the surveillance issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said that not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and that further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.
The lawsuit alleged that the NSA "uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time." Lawsuits have been filed over data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.
However, the data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.
Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance_13
you aren't looking below the surface and that's what I try to do. When you provided your information the first thing I did was try to analyze it... what is the source is one of the first questions I ask. I look at the About Us information for a website and then do a search on principals. It didn't take long to figure out that Mr. Millory had every indication of having a strong bias and motivation to discredit global warming because of his business dealings.
also, after I saw the movie I did some of my own research on the information provided and found it to be mostly solid. There are some areas of disagreement, but by and large, the scientific community doesn't disagree that global warmings is a big issue and needs to be addressed.
I'm a critical thinker... I question whatever information crosses my path.
ROFL!
interesting...
uninformed vs informed ?
but your statement is so ridiculous:
you just condemn anyone using corporate money to do research
of course not, but when a corporation like ExxonMobil is giving you money, it's not likely that you're an unbiased source. If you'll notice there are other clues to that being true... such as him being caught trying to hide the fact that he was receiving money from ExxonMobil and that one of his main jobs is fighting for corporate interests (read the CSRWatch.com site).
and pretty much blindly accept all of the science used by Al Gore's "movie".
I started this board specifically to provide a place for sharing and discussing the science around global warming. That in itself proves your statement wrong.
you don't have it right.
you said:
"I don't see Milloy mentioned on that sight?"
so I pointed out that at the link in my post to you here had right in the FIRST paragraph how he's involved in CSRWatch website which proves you are the one blindly accepting and not even reading the research or understanding your sources.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12660427
Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com
I never specifically said Mexicans. The article specified Mexicans.
ROFL!!! keep digging!
I refrain as much as possible
ROFL!!! but it's okay to post that mexican immigrants are dullards
I'd take any previous president over Bush anyday
the whole impeachment of Clinton was just a political witch hunt
Bush should be tried for war crimes
even Bush deserves an attorney and a fair and speedy trial for his war crimes
:)
I've heard about that suit, but I don't think this country or this world can wait that long and besides it's long past time for congress to act
he should be impeached now
have anything else besides propaganda slogans? too simplistic and in case you haven't notice, most aren't buying it anymore
I think a good analogy to the GOP strategy is the dynamiting of the fires caused by the 1906 earthquake in SF... all it managed to do was spread the fires and burn most of the city down
which ever dictionary you want to use, SoxFan is correct in his analysis
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dullard
We're getting the dullards....who need "English as a second language" programs.
another great example of the lies coming out of the Bush groupies
doesn't seem that long ago that those of us saying that Bush & Co lied were pounced upon here at iHub.
incorrect logic...
"educated with someone having intelligence"...no it's more difficult to become educated if you lack intelligence.
I'm sure that's true, but what you've been suggesting is that lack of education equates to lack of intelligence which is not true.
that hit the nail on the head
that still doesn't indicate a lack of native intelligence but simply a lack of previous education background or other priorities directly related to supporting themselves or family
you are just so determined to paint them in a bad light rather than see the positive side and the potential of people to lift themselves up given half an opportunity. IMO your problem is you don't want to spend a dime giving them that opportunity
I think we've beaten this subject to death. your stance is clear and I think I've made mine clear.