I agree until the last statement as some politicians are sent not to compromise, but to block. In some cases this is acceptable on both ends as there are some issues where no compromise exists.
If you think about it though, to start out by stating you will never compromise, your modus operandi is 'my way or no way'. That is basically the thinking of a dictatorial system not a democracy. To me it is ironic that those that want only there way use the democratic system to try to gain power. History is replete with examples where such people succeeded and it isn't pretty.
I heard an astounding radio interview the other day when a certain politician stated, 'he would never compromise on any issue whatever it is ... that isn't what he was elected to do.' I rest my case.
What case? What’s wrong with that? Imagine a constituency that is overwhelmingly in favor of [thing]. We’re talking 60% or so, with the rest not being opposed to it in its entirety, just its scope. It would be wrong of the elected official to go against [thing] in that case. He would be doing his job properly to not compromise on [thing].
What case? What’s wrong with that? Imagine a constituency that is overwhelmingly in favor of [thing]. We’re talking 60% or so, with the rest not being opposed to it in its entirety, just its scope. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">It would be wrong of the elected official to go against [thing] in that case. He would be doing his job properly to not compromise on [thing].</span>
Perhaps we are seeing this from different view points. To me, starting out by saying everything has to be my way or I will stop anything happening is just not what democracy is all about. I would feel this whatever the position on the political spectrum the person saying this came from. Instead of 'compromise' which certain media outlets have changed to mean something else, perhaps the term 'reaching a consensus' would be better to use.
…starting out by saying everything has to be my way or I will stop anything happening is just not what democracy is all about.
Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. If you mean “stop anything happening” in regard to the scope of the effects of [thing] as previously mentioned, that’s just the official doing his job. But “anything” as in anything is different.
I agree until the last statement as some politicians are sent not to compromise, but to block. In some cases this is acceptable on both ends as there are some issues where no compromise exists.
Except the blocking has gone down at an unprecedented level ( on just about everything) including a record number of Filibusters. Isn't it congresses' responsibility to write bills or at least negotiate a compromise? Including aid to veterans, relief on student loans, pay as you go ( an idea that Republicans proposed the President Agreed, Republicans killed the idea. The Republican party cannot even vote for it's own ideas or initiatives. They are a party with no vision for the country. They have become a marketing firm with their own TV station. They are the least productive Congress in our history & if they didn't gerrymander districts & try to mess with voting rights they would not be in charge of the country. The President won not only the electoral college but also the popular vote. Democrats also won the popular vote for Congress nationwide by almost 500,000 votes. Now they are suing the President & wasting taxpayer's money for a change to the AAC that they wanted the President to make & that they overwhelmingly voted for. Tragic joke.
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
Perhaps I could've been more clear in my comment. His statement seemed like a real opinion because of the dangers this president and Congress have delivered upon our country by actively dismantling our constitutionally protected freedoms and the gross expansion of the powers of the president. There is nothing funny about what's happening in Washington.
You were pretty clear. I thought I was too but I'll try again. This small initiative has little chance of increasing "the dangers this president and congress have delivered upon our country" or of helping to "actively dismantle our constitutionally protected freedoms". This isn't about a "gross expansion of the powers of the president". Running around like your hair is on fire when a reasonable proposal is made is the silly part.
At least this is a tiny bit less time that he can devote to personally destroying all things good as we know it.
Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. If you mean “stop anything happening” in regard to the scope of the effects of [thing] as previously mentioned, that’s just the official doing his job. But “anything” as in anything is different.
Aren't tax breaks a government initiative? In fact isn't anything the government does by definition a government initiative?
I don't follow. My point was Apple is doing this on their own without needing the White House or anyone else in government to tell them to do so. Same thing with accessibility features for the disabled. If something is a good idea companies will adopt the idea because at the end of the day they want satisfied customers (that are more likely to do business with them). This includes B2B customers.
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
I don't follow. My point was Apple is doing this on their own without needing the White House or anyone else in government to tell them to do so. Same thing with accessibility features for the disabled. If something is a good idea companies will adopt the idea because at the end of the day they want satisfied customers (that are more likely to do business with them). This includes B2B customers.
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
Sorry if I misunderstood....but how does anyone garner that from this statement. "So Apple did this without a government initiative?" Who are you asking this question to?
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
We have already discussed this. Ask Amazon if you want a definitive answer. The US government isn't going to explain why Company X wasn't invited to be part of this charter effort. And even if you ask Amazon, they might not know a specific reason. It is entirely possible that the only answer you will get is that administration selected a group of companies that did not include Company X.
It is pretty clear that the administration is focusing on really big companies, like Dow 30 components. Apple isn't a Dow component, but they have the largest market cap, making it a peer of the other Dow components. Amazon is nowhere near being a Dow 30 component.
Remember, this is a voluntary program, however it would be most effective if the biggest companies say "yes, I'm for this" to convince others to act similarly. Sure, the little mom-and-pop coffee shop could be part of the program, but their participation will not have the same influence as Big Business.
Even if Apple was already doing this on their own, the point of this program is to showcase Big Companies as leaders who are committed to this practice of taking care of their smaller suppliers.
Let's reiterate that AppleInsider is a US website written in American English.
As I mentioned earlier, yes, AI could have chosen different words, resulting in a better headline and less confusing prose. They did not, so we are stuck with poor but correct writing.
Remember, true journalism died in the Nineties.
It's read internationally, and written in bombastic English;-).
But I was more in defense of the poster, not attacking the site. I grew up in the corn belt, and my non-Canadian grandfather used 'on the dole' frequently.
So, while the American Dictionary seems to avoid using the term as 'handing-out,' American press has not not gotten that memo and use it as a 'weighted' term.
I suppose some boffins have an explanation for that ( ;-) )
We have already discussed this. Ask Amazon if you want a definitive answer. Tompanies as leaders who are committed to this practice of taking care of their smaller suppliers.
Amazon has the reputation of delaying payments to vendors/suppliers as part of their business plan. Walmart used to be the same but reportedly have improved in the years since I stopped supplying graphics/signage to them.
Amazon has the reputation of delaying payments to vendors/suppliers as part of their business plan. Walmart used to be the same but reportedly have improved in the years since I stopped supplying graphics/signage to them.
So, while the American Dictionary seems to avoid using the term as 'handing-out,' American press has not not gotten that memo and use it as a 'weighted' term.
As I have repeatedly mentioned, true journalism died in the Nineties.
Amazon has the reputation of delaying payments to vendors/suppliers as part of their business plan. Walmart used to be the same but reportedly have improved in the years since I stopped supplying graphics/signage to them.
Well, you are clearly the authority here about Amazon and Walmart business practices vis-a-vis your own business.
That said, it still doesn't change the fact that you need to ask Amazon themselves why they aren't part of this new voluntary initiative from the White House.
And thanks for kicking Walmart to the curb! Well done, carry on!
If you think about it though, to start out by stating you will never compromise, your modus operandi is 'my way or no way'. That is basically the thinking of a dictatorial system not a democracy. To me it is ironic that those that want only there way use the democratic system to try to gain power. History is replete with examples where such people succeeded and it isn't pretty.
Yeah, no. You are thinking this too far. There are simply items in which there is no compromise only because the differences the two sides have. That does not mean one or the other wants to be a dictatorship, although that would be fun for a day
There are many topics in which people just don't agree, which is the reason for electing your own people to office. If not, we would simply hold a lottery.
I don't want to list the obvious differences as to not start a firestorm of opinions, but we all know of what we think that the other side is, well, completely on the other side.
Except the blocking has gone down at an unprecedented level ( on just about everything) including a record number of Filibusters. Isn't it congresses' responsibility to write bills or at least negotiate a compromise?
Not sure where it is written Congress is suppose to negotiate. Actually, the branches was set up as to slow down the progress of government, not increase it.
Quote:
Including aid to veterans, relief on student loans, pay as you go ( an idea that Republicans proposed the President Agreed, Republicans killed the idea. The Republican party cannot even vote for it's own ideas or initiatives. They are a party with no vision for the country. They have become a marketing firm with their own TV station.
Hmm
Quote:
They are the least productive Congress in our history & if they didn't gerrymander districts & try to mess with voting rights they would not be in charge of the country.
You do know the repubs only control 1/3 of the government, don't you?
Quote:
The President won not only the electoral college but also the popular vote. Democrats also won the popular vote for Congress nationwide by almost 500,000 votes. Now they are suing the President & wasting taxpayer's money for a change to the AAC that they wanted the President to make & that they overwhelmingly voted for. Tragic joke.
You are not suggesting that this president is one of compromise? One to reach across the way and sit down with the other side to get things done? If you talk about my way or the highway, Obama is by far the leader in that chant.
The entire government is messed up, and those like yourself who ONLY see your side, attributes to what you are complaining about. You only want the other side to capitulate to your. An honest look at all of government and you will see it fails completely, and that includes completely!
Not sure where it is written Congress is suppose to negotiate. Actually, the branches was set up as to slow down the progress of government, not increase it.
Actually no, they are supposed to be co-equal branches & Congress writes the laws, Their purpose is not to slow down Government. Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Congress passes Bills, the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill.
Quote:
Hmm
Yup, great answer.
Quote:
You do know the repubs only control 1/3 of the government, don't you?
Ummm you know that a bill has to pass in both the house & the senate don't you? Take Immigration reform for example It has passed in the Senate & will not even be bought to the floor for a vote by John Boehner, speaker of the house. Actually, I say they control the Supreme Court also.
Quote:
You are not suggesting that this president is one of compromise? One to reach across the way and sit down with the other side to get things done? If you talk about my way or the highway, Obama is by far the leader in that chant.
The entire government is messed up, and those like yourself who ONLY see your side, attributes to what you are complaining about. You only want the other side to capitulate to your. An honest look at all of government and you will see it fails completely, and that includes completely!
This president has bent over backwards to compromise with Republicans. Please do some research. This is the party that, like I said, wanted to reinstate pay as you go & when the president said okay let's do that they said no we changed our minds. Please give me some examples of Republicans compromising since the Tea Party started became the tail that wags the dog.
Comments
If you think about it though, to start out by stating you will never compromise, your modus operandi is 'my way or no way'. That is basically the thinking of a dictatorial system not a democracy. To me it is ironic that those that want only there way use the democratic system to try to gain power. History is replete with examples where such people succeeded and it isn't pretty.
What case? What’s wrong with that? Imagine a constituency that is overwhelmingly in favor of [thing]. We’re talking 60% or so, with the rest not being opposed to it in its entirety, just its scope. It would be wrong of the elected official to go against [thing] in that case. He would be doing his job properly to not compromise on [thing].
Perhaps we are seeing this from different view points. To me, starting out by saying everything has to be my way or I will stop anything happening is just not what democracy is all about. I would feel this whatever the position on the political spectrum the person saying this came from. Instead of 'compromise' which certain media outlets have changed to mean something else, perhaps the term 'reaching a consensus' would be better to use.
Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. If you mean “stop anything happening” in regard to the scope of the effects of [thing] as previously mentioned, that’s just the official doing his job. But “anything” as in anything is different.
So Apple did this without a government initiative?
Aren't tax breaks a government initiative? In fact isn't anything the government does by definition a government initiative?
I agree until the last statement as some politicians are sent not to compromise, but to block. In some cases this is acceptable on both ends as there are some issues where no compromise exists.
Except the blocking has gone down at an unprecedented level ( on just about everything) including a record number of Filibusters. Isn't it congresses' responsibility to write bills or at least negotiate a compromise? Including aid to veterans, relief on student loans, pay as you go ( an idea that Republicans proposed the President Agreed, Republicans killed the idea. The Republican party cannot even vote for it's own ideas or initiatives. They are a party with no vision for the country. They have become a marketing firm with their own TV station. They are the least productive Congress in our history & if they didn't gerrymander districts & try to mess with voting rights they would not be in charge of the country. The President won not only the electoral college but also the popular vote. Democrats also won the popular vote for Congress nationwide by almost 500,000 votes. Now they are suing the President & wasting taxpayer's money for a change to the AAC that they wanted the President to make & that they overwhelmingly voted for. Tragic joke.
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
You were pretty clear. I thought I was too but I'll try again. This small initiative has little chance of increasing "the dangers this president and congress have delivered upon our country" or of helping to "actively dismantle our constitutionally protected freedoms". This isn't about a "gross expansion of the powers of the president". Running around like your hair is on fire when a reasonable proposal is made is the silly part.
At least this is a tiny bit less time that he can devote to personally destroying all things good as we know it.
I think we agree ...
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
I don't follow. My point was Apple is doing this on their own without needing the White House or anyone else in government to tell them to do so. Same thing with accessibility features for the disabled. If something is a good idea companies will adopt the idea because at the end of the day they want satisfied customers (that are more likely to do business with them). This includes B2B customers.
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
Sorry if I misunderstood....but how does anyone garner that from this statement. "So Apple did this without a government initiative?" Who are you asking this question to?
What I'd like to know is why isn't Amazon on this list? Aren't they notorious for getting paid a lot faster than they pay their suppliers?
We have already discussed this. Ask Amazon if you want a definitive answer. The US government isn't going to explain why Company X wasn't invited to be part of this charter effort. And even if you ask Amazon, they might not know a specific reason. It is entirely possible that the only answer you will get is that administration selected a group of companies that did not include Company X.
It is pretty clear that the administration is focusing on really big companies, like Dow 30 components. Apple isn't a Dow component, but they have the largest market cap, making it a peer of the other Dow components. Amazon is nowhere near being a Dow 30 component.
Remember, this is a voluntary program, however it would be most effective if the biggest companies say "yes, I'm for this" to convince others to act similarly. Sure, the little mom-and-pop coffee shop could be part of the program, but their participation will not have the same influence as Big Business.
Even if Apple was already doing this on their own, the point of this program is to showcase Big Companies as leaders who are committed to this practice of taking care of their smaller suppliers.
Let's reiterate that AppleInsider is a US website written in American English.
As I mentioned earlier, yes, AI could have chosen different words, resulting in a better headline and less confusing prose. They did not, so we are stuck with poor but correct writing.
Remember, true journalism died in the Nineties.
It's read internationally, and written in bombastic English;-).
But I was more in defense of the poster, not attacking the site. I grew up in the corn belt, and my non-Canadian grandfather used 'on the dole' frequently.
just last week: http://news.yahoo.com/off-dole-job-ben-carson-090000195.html
2 years ago http://nypost.com/2012/02/13/on-the-dole-a-fifth-of-all-americans/
These are american sites using dole as 'a handout'
and MSN used it again as receiving more than you are due. http://money.msn.com/investing/10-states-on-the-federal-dole
So, while the American Dictionary seems to avoid using the term as 'handing-out,' American press has not not gotten that memo and use it as a 'weighted' term.
I suppose some boffins have an explanation for that ( ;-) )
Sounds like you taught them a lesson there.
So, while the American Dictionary seems to avoid using the term as 'handing-out,' American press has not not gotten that memo and use it as a 'weighted' term.
As I have repeatedly mentioned, true journalism died in the Nineties.
Amazon has the reputation of delaying payments to vendors/suppliers as part of their business plan. Walmart used to be the same but reportedly have improved in the years since I stopped supplying graphics/signage to them.
Well, you are clearly the authority here about Amazon and Walmart business practices vis-a-vis your own business.
That said, it still doesn't change the fact that you need to ask Amazon themselves why they aren't part of this new voluntary initiative from the White House.
And thanks for kicking Walmart to the curb! Well done, carry on!
I believe Murdoch actually started a lot earlier than that.
If you think about it though, to start out by stating you will never compromise, your modus operandi is 'my way or no way'. That is basically the thinking of a dictatorial system not a democracy. To me it is ironic that those that want only there way use the democratic system to try to gain power. History is replete with examples where such people succeeded and it isn't pretty.
Yeah, no. You are thinking this too far. There are simply items in which there is no compromise only because the differences the two sides have. That does not mean one or the other wants to be a dictatorship, although that would be fun for a day
There are many topics in which people just don't agree, which is the reason for electing your own people to office. If not, we would simply hold a lottery.
I don't want to list the obvious differences as to not start a firestorm of opinions, but we all know of what we think that the other side is, well, completely on the other side.
Except the blocking has gone down at an unprecedented level ( on just about everything) including a record number of Filibusters. Isn't it congresses' responsibility to write bills or at least negotiate a compromise?
Not sure where it is written Congress is suppose to negotiate. Actually, the branches was set up as to slow down the progress of government, not increase it.
Hmm
You do know the repubs only control 1/3 of the government, don't you?
You are not suggesting that this president is one of compromise? One to reach across the way and sit down with the other side to get things done? If you talk about my way or the highway, Obama is by far the leader in that chant.
The entire government is messed up, and those like yourself who ONLY see your side, attributes to what you are complaining about. You only want the other side to capitulate to your. An honest look at all of government and you will see it fails completely, and that includes completely!
Not sure where it is written Congress is suppose to negotiate. Actually, the branches was set up as to slow down the progress of government, not increase it.
Actually no, they are supposed to be co-equal branches & Congress writes the laws, Their purpose is not to slow down Government. Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Congress passes Bills, the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill.
Yup, great answer.
Ummm you know that a bill has to pass in both the house & the senate don't you? Take Immigration reform for example It has passed in the Senate & will not even be bought to the floor for a vote by John Boehner, speaker of the house. Actually, I say they control the Supreme Court also.
The entire government is messed up, and those like yourself who ONLY see your side, attributes to what you are complaining about. You only want the other side to capitulate to your. An honest look at all of government and you will see it fails completely, and that includes completely!
This president has bent over backwards to compromise with Republicans. Please do some research. This is the party that, like I said, wanted to reinstate pay as you go & when the president said okay let's do that they said no we changed our minds. Please give me some examples of Republicans compromising since the Tea Party started became the tail that wags the dog.