SkyDekker

I don't either.....that's why I asked him to explain himself further. So far he has been unable to do so. Just says it is pretty simple. Paul, if it is so simple, maybe you can explain it in very simple terms to us?

No... but neither should they have their liberties restricted. I want you to work THIS HARD... but you're only going to take [cap]this paycut[/cap] (not that some of the incomes aren't what I would consider out of line... but I think what sports players get is out of line too.... ) AND.... on top of that SELL YOUR HOUSE. AND ... on top of that Take all of the blame if you can't get this turned around. AND... on top of that..... honestly, who are you trying to justify this too? There IS a lynch mob mentality here. But it's "ok" cuz every last one of them is just rich "fatcats" There is no lynch mob mentality at all. I think it isn't abnormal to stipulate the compensation of top executives who have lead their companies to a point where they need taxpayer money to remain in business. They either did not work hard enough, or were not competent enough. Normally that would mean that the company goes bankrupt and they lose their source of income. Since that is not the case with them being propped up with taxpayer money, there is nothing wron with restricting their compensation.

Come on, they came up with Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. And electing a black president is a landslide. I mean you guys are still backwards enough to have seperate high school proms, one for whites and one for non-whites. HUH?! I went to high school TWENTY years ago.... and even back then, there was no separation. I don't know what movies you're watching... but it's not my reality. Might not be your reality, but it is your countries reality, or in the least was the reality until 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91371629

I didn't say it means negative, I said that it is generally used in the pejorative.

I'll spell it out in simpler terms for you: the word "bias" is generally used to describe a negative. What exactly is negative about stopping people from dealing drugs?

Then leave. I am sure some new talent would appreciate the opportunity to turn the company around. It is the current CEO's that lead their companies into this mess.

But you can only call that a bias if they had a hadn in setting the rules. Or, if you claim that they neglected other parts of their duties to focus on drug crime because of their religious beliefs. Neither are part of this thread, so there still isn't a bias. Just an extra motivation to do a job well.

In many cases it can be argued that to some degree they are. Most of these giant bonuses are performance driven and generally not based on long term performance (long term as in excess of 10 years). Hence, the top executives are driven to look at making decisions that increase their own paycheques, as opposed to making decisions based on what is best for the companies long and sustained profitability. GM is a perfect example. They should have dealt with the insane union demands a long time ago. However, that would have resulted in labour action, which would have impacted short term performance and would have seriously decreased their pay. However, if the senior executives would ahve done that, GM would very likely be in much better shape than they are now. Some of these companies are most definitely failing because of the mechanism that drives the excessive pay.

So, where is the bias in this scenario?

That's not what he said. Hiring staff who have extra motivation to enforce rules that are set by another organization is just smart hiring. If I have a building filled with Singalese, I don't think it would be overly smart to hire a Tamil property manager....

Come on, they came up with Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. And electing a black president is a landslide. I mean you guys are still backwards enough to have seperate high school proms, one for whites and one for non-whites.

I don't see that. Quite frankly if you are the CEO for a company that needs taxpayers money to be bailed out, you shouldn't even be making $500,000. Look at the performance of GM and the compensation of the CEO. The difference between average worker compensations and CEO compensation has been growing exponentially in the last years. Clearly that increase hasn't been reflected in the value that they have created in the same time frame.

Simply not true. Marijuana is not legal in Amsterdam, Holland or The Netherlands. Simply quite true. The Netherlands handles these kind of issues in a way that makes the USA's version of freedom and liberty appear laughable. My Dutch relatives are very clear about that. From the site http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/ begin quoted text>>> Soft drugs as cannabis in all its forms (marijuana, hashish, hash oil) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (so called magic mushrooms or paddos – from Dutch: paddestoel - mushroom) are legal under condition of so called “personal use”. As a result smoking of cannabis even in public, is not prosecuted as well as selling it although technically illegal under still valid Opium Act (dating from 1919, cannabis added as drug in 1950), is widely tolerated provided that it happens in a limited, controlled way (in a coffee shop, small portions, 5 grams maximum transaction, not many portions on stock, sale only to adults, no minors on the premises, no advertisement of drugs, the local municipality did not give the order to close the coffee shop). Situation changed recently in regard to the hallucinogenic mushrooms (also known as magic mushrooms or paddos), the sale of which has been forbidden starting November 1, 2008.

Which story did you prefer? I thought the married couple was the best! The married couple was hilarious and by far the funniest story.....I thought the first date one was pretty good too.

"Young People Fucking" I found relatively amusing.

What censorship....many canadians were perfectly able to see the US commercials. Regions with an Over The Air "OTA" HD transmitter from CTV have to simulcast substitute. Like I said above, it has nothing to do with censorship, but with protection of commerce. As such it is the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that fights for these rules...the CRTC does regularly rule in their favour when it comes to these issues. The CRTC is really not much different from the US FCC. In some cases the FCC is actually much more restrictive. You are just plain wrong.

Simply not true. Marijuana is not legal in Amsterdam, Holland or The Netherlands.

Who exactly has dies to protect your right to own guns?

I think it is a better use of money that you don't have then using that same money you don't have to kill people.

Of course you are allowed to slam your own country. You may just want to make sure you are correct before slamming it though. Some of the US commercials run in Canada, when the companies pay for them to run in Canada. generally we don't see those commercials because the companies paying for them see no need for the commercial to run in Canada. Has nothing to do with a Nanny state or anything like that.

Integrity Name one politician with integrity......

Screw the roses, give me the thorns....

yeah, but apologizing doesn't make me feel like I have a really big dick.....

Same reason more value is given to a gold medal in the Olympic Games than a gold medal in the Special Olympics....

Hey JR, It must really burn you that the current black president comes across as so much more intelligent than the previous white one?