text:
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
. Please
December 22, 2014, 09:03:00 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Posts in
Topics by
Latest Member:
Shinobi Dog
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
« previous
next »
Topic: Romney (Read 15369 times)
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Romney
Reply #150 on:
September 27, 2012, 11:29:24 AM »
Doug, Romney thought mandated health care for all residents was good/great for the people of his state.
Further, he is using his mandated medical plan, in his own words, on national TV,
as his best example
that he
"shows more empathy and care about the
people of this country
than that kind of record."
Yet he opposes ObamaCare which is much like his own plan.
And you don't think that's not a Flip Flop?
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #151 on:
September 27, 2012, 01:11:08 PM »
Except to the extent that it makes him a weak candidate on what would be a major issue but for his flip flop, I don't care. He's taken a stand that as best I can tell he cannot reverse to stand for undoing Obamacare on the national level.
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney, How about Consent of the Governed as a governing principle.
Reply #152 on:
September 27, 2012, 01:47:01 PM »
JDN, In the future, will you please not use my name in your posts when you are being UNRESPONSIVE to the points made or the questions posed. You DO or you DO NOT see a distinction between state and federal legislation? You didn't say.
One difference between a Massachusetts state plan and Obamacare is ... CONSENT of the GOVERNED. In Mass, the people wanted the program and sent legislators there to the tune of 85% Democrats to get it done. The most Romney could do is shape it slightly with the powers of being Governor and spin it positively the best that he could.
In Obamacare, there was no consent of the governed for the people of Texas as an example. Who in WYOMING wanted this or voted for it? Pres. Obama rounded up a temporary majority that already has been disbanded to force down the throat of Americans what MOST DO NOT WANT.
Yet you see no distinction, you never acknowledge where you are wrong, just move on with more deception and blurring.
One candidate has a signature achievement of ramming this down our throats and one has promised to repeal it. That makes for a VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION. Why not argue the merits of the legislation or the repeal with one side for it and one side against it instead of the ad hominem attacks that you throw?
Your example is not a flip flop, it is a distinction you choose to ignore. Romney's past was too moderate and too compromising for many of us on the right. So we choose between too moderate and far left - that's easy!
You say he changed a position where he did not and you said he will raise tax rates where he has said he will not. Why can't you argue policies and positions of the candidates honestly?
Pres. Obama chose to write special deals in the bill for special Dem Senators rather than negotiate on substance to win even one Republican vote. Did you show where that same thing happened in Masschusetts under Gov. Romney? If so, I missed it.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Noonan: This is it Mitt
Reply #153 on:
September 28, 2012, 08:30:49 AM »
Noonan: 2012 Debates: This Is It, Mitt How Romney can make the most of his face-off with Obama.
By PEGGY NOONAN
"Governor, the success or failure of your entire presidential campaign will come down to what happens between the hours of 9 and 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 3. We're at a hinge point in history. It's not too much to say the future of the American republic depends on how you do in that hour and a half."
"Um, specifically, what do you want me to do?"
"Be relaxed!"
That's what's coming from some of Mitt Romney's supporters right nowWednesday night is critical, the last chance, so don't forget it's nothing, a walk in the park. He doesn't strike me as easily given to freak-outs, but if he is, this would be the moment.
Let's take a different approach.
It is true that the debate has the potential to alter the dynamic of the election. A good or great one, followed up by an improved, more serious campaign, could make everything new again. A bad one would do damage indeed.
But there will be three debates, and it's possible the truly high-stakes one will be the last, on Oct. 22. And there are some institutional and personal elements surrounding the Wednesday debate that may well work in Mr. Romney's favor.
From a canny journalist with a counterintuitive head: "The media will be rooting for Romney." Two reasons. First, they don't want the story to end. They're in show biz: A boring end means lower ratings. Careers are involved! Second, the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that more than half the country (and some of their colleagues) think they are at least operationally in the tank for the president, or the Democrats in general. It is hurting the media's standing. A midcourse correction is in order, and Wednesday will offer an opportunity: I think it's fair to say Gov. Romney more than held his own this evening, and a consensus seems to be forming that the president underperformed.
Mr. Romney walks in as the underdog, behind in the polls. He's not the president, the other guy is. He's not world-famous, the other guy is. The president is known for smooth presentation and verbal fluidity, Mr. Romney more recently for awkwardisms and gaffes.
It's good to be the underdog. "Politics is exceeding expectations."
As the Republican candidate, Mr. Romney is used to being battered about. He can take a shot. But once you're president, you're never battered about. The mystique of the Oval Office is too great. People tell you what you want to hear. Everyone's too easy on you.
President Obama hasn't been challenged in public in a long time. He hasn't been challenged in private in a long time. So if Mr. Romney treats him with respect but not deference, if he really engages, challenges, questions and pushes, he just might knock the president off his stride.
There was something Mr. Romney did in the primary debates. When his competitors were answering questions, he didn't stand at the podium looking distracted. He'd turn and smile at them sweetly and encouragingly, as if he were thinking, "You're the cutest little shrimp." No one has looked at Mr. Obama like that since 2003. It's possible he wouldn't like it.
Everyone is waiting for the "Are you better off now . . ." question, but that's a little complicated. No one knew Reagan was going to uncork it in 1980, and so it had a chance to be devastating. This year, everyone knows it's coming. So maybe it won't come. Mr. Obama surely will have memorized a response. Or maybe he will bring it up first. "I'd actually like to talk about whether some people are better off now. It's a complicated question, but teachers and firefighters who've kept their jobs because of what we did might say they're better off . . ."
Mr. Romney should be wondering Which Obama he'll meet.
More-in-Sorrow-Than-in-Anger Obama? He patiently explains, until your eyes cross, the real facts of the economy and the beginning of recovery, the competing and even contradictory forces that determine outcomes. He speaks in soft, rounded phrases.
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
Faux-Humble Obama? I've made some mistakes, I'll admit it. I didn't always do so well explaining exactly what I was doing, in terms of policy, and all the reasons why. I haven't been perfect, but I wasn't wrong to help people get through the height of the crisis. I've learned a lot, but I didn't need to be told to save the U.S. auto industry.
Perturbable Obama? This is a proud man. He doesn't like to be questioned too closely, as he showed when he was pressed on Univision last week.
Rope-a-Dope Obama? As he showed on "60 Minutes," he can make it up as he goes along when he feels he needs to. If you endlessly correct his numbers, it could leave you sputtering digits, slinging factoids, losing the larger point.
Cool McCool? This Obama is tall, friendly, shows up on "The View" and has a smile so big it wrinkles his nose. But he can refer to himself as "eye candy," and reminds you of the old McCain commercial: "He's the biggest celebrity in the world."
Maybe Mr. Romney will meet all five.
Mitt Romney still sounds, at this late date in the campaign, as if he's talking to Republicans. But they don't have to be persuaded, they think Mr. Obama is a disaster and want him out. He should be talking to independents, centrists, suburban women, those who might be won over. A lot of them would be grateful to be impressed.
In that area, an idea. In 1980, a lot of people thought incumbent Jimmy Carter wasn't cutting it. It wasn't personal, he just didn't have the right answers for the problems at hand. But people had real doubts about Ronald Reaganhe was too shoot-from-the-hip, he'd start World War III. These were understandable reservations! He had to prove he was a pair of safe hands.
People think Mr. Romney's rich, doesn't understand regular people's lives. They're not sure he can turn things around. He has to prove he's a pair of safe hands.
One way to get at that: People hate it that Washington doesn't work anymore, that it's incapable of solving problems, that it can't even pass a budget. There is widespread knowledge that Mr. Obama, whatever his virtues, doesn't work well with othershe can't negotiate, can't bend them to his will, doesn't really listen, can't work it out, can't win them over. It's all stasis now. And will be if he is re-elected. The complaint that he is at once convinced, detached and uninterested is heard not only in Washington and among Republicans, but among foreign leaders.
Maybe Mr. Romney can note that he once ran a great state, that he faced a legislature dominated by the other party, that he worked with them, heard them, negotiated with them, and that together they produced a great deal. Even a health-care bill that didn't tear the state apart, didn't cause widespread bitterness, didn't inspire broad public resentment. It was, in these respects, the opposite of ObamaCare. Mr. Romney learned much from the experience about what works locally and can work nationally. It's actually not a story to avoid, it is a story worth telling.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney: A new course for the ME
Reply #154 on:
October 01, 2012, 10:57:30 AM »
Well gents, what do we make of this?
Mitt Romney: A New Course for the Middle East
Restore the three sinews of American influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values..
By MITT ROMNEY
Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country's peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance. In Libya, our ambassador was murdered in a terrorist attack. U.S. embassies throughout the region have been stormed in violent protests. And in Iran, the ayatollahs continue to move full tilt toward nuclear-weapons capability, all the while promising to annihilate Israel.
These developments are not, as President Obama says, mere "bumps in the road." They are major issues that put our security at risk.
Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We're not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies.
And that's dangerous. If the Middle East descends into chaos, if Iran moves toward nuclear breakout, or if Israel's security is compromised, America could be pulled into the maelstrom.
We still have time to address these threats, but it will require a new strategy toward the Middle East.
The first step is to understand how we got here. Since World War II, America has been the leader of the Free World. We're unique in having earned that role not through conquest but through promoting human rights, free markets and the rule of law. We ally ourselves with like-minded countries, expand prosperity through trade and keep the peace by maintaining a military second to none.
But in recent years, President Obama has allowed our leadership to atrophy. Our economy is stuck in a "recovery" that barely deserves the name. Our national debt has risen to record levels. Our military, tested by a decade of war, is facing devastating cuts thanks to the budgetary games played by the White House. Finally, our values have been misappliedand misunderstoodby a president who thinks that weakness will win favor with our adversaries.
By failing to maintain the elements of our influence and by stepping away from our allies, President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability. He does not understand that an American policy that lacks resolve can provoke aggression and encourage disorder.
The Middle East is a case in point. The Arab Spring presented an opportunity to help move millions of people from oppression to freedom. But it also presented grave risks. We needed a strategy for success, but the president offered none. And now he seeks to downplay the significance of the calamities of the past few weeks.
The same incomprehension afflicts the president's policy toward Israel. The president began his term with the explicit policy of creating "daylight" between our two countries. He recently downgraded Israel from being our "closest ally" in the Middle East to being only "one of our closest allies." It's a diplomatic message that will be received clearly by Israel and its adversaries alike. He dismissed Israel's concerns about Iran as mere "noise" that he prefers to "block out." And at a time when Israel needs America to stand with it, he declined to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In this period of uncertainty, we need to apply a coherent strategy of supporting our partners in the Middle Eastthat is, both governments and individuals who share our values.
This means restoring our credibility with Iran. When we say an Iranian nuclear-weapons capabilityand the regional instability that comes with itis unacceptable, the ayatollahs must be made to believe us.
It means placing no daylight between the United States and Israel. And it means using the full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity for those who have for too long known only corruption and oppression. The dignity of work and the ability to steer the course of their lives are the best alternatives to extremism.
But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values. That will require a very different set of policies from those President Obama is pursuing.
The 20th century became an American Century because we were steadfast in defense of freedom. We made the painful sacrifices necessary to defeat totalitarianism in all of its guises. To defend ourselves and our allies, we paid the price in treasure and in soldiers who never came home.
Our challenges are different now, but if the 21st century is to be another American Century, we need leaders who understand that keeping the peace requires American strength in all of its dimensions.
Mr. Romney is the Republican Party candidate for president.
Power User
Posts: 6171
526 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romneys economic strategy
Reply #155 on:
October 09, 2012, 11:30:24 AM »
More than 500 economists including five Nobel laureates have endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneys economic plan as the right choice for jobs creation and economic growth.
The pro-Romney group Economists for Romney announced Monday that its statement of support for the former Massachusetts governors economic plan now has 526 signatories, up from 400 a week ago.
We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romneys economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom, Economists for Romneys statement of support reads, proclaiming Romneys plan as based on proven principles to restrain the federal government and expand opportunities in the private sector.
The 526 economists including Nobel laureates Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes point to six facets of Romneys economic approach that they see as beneficial to future economic success.
Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
Restructure regulation to end too big to fail, improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.
Seven of the signatories are from Harvard University and five from Columbia University two of President Barack Obamas alma maters.
The economists statement of support pillories Obamas economic record, claiming that his expansion of the federal government has resulted in anemic economic recovery and high unemployment, which will continue if his future plans are implemented.
Among the Obama policies with which the 526 economists take issue include:
Relied on short-term stimulus programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.
Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.
Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.
Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.
Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney Foreign Policy address, excerpts
Reply #156 on:
October 09, 2012, 12:01:45 PM »
The attack on our consulate there on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001.
This latest assault can't be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the administration has finally conceded: These attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others -- especially on women and girls -- who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, for example -- our closest ally in the region -- has suffered great strains. The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel, and he succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
When we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march -- and with an American ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates -- it's clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with us. I share this hope.
I'll roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I'll make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war. The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I'll restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I'll implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2% of their GDP to security spending. Today only three of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
Power User
Posts: 31846
POTH goes after Romney's economist
Reply #157 on:
October 14, 2012, 09:33:25 AM »
I HOPE youre sitting down for this, said Ali Velshi, the CNN anchor, staring into the camera, his voice booming with incredulity about a campaign promise issued by Mitt Romney: that, if elected, Mr. Romney would create 12 million jobs in four years.
Having framed this idea as preposterous, Mr. Velshi introduced R. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia Business School, a Romney campaign adviser and a very smart man, as the host put it. So smart, Mr. Velshi told Mr. Hubbard, that you couldnt have been involved in the writing of that policy. Why? Because you would know that that is just not possible.
Wearing a dark suit and projecting an air of geeky, avuncular calm, Mr. Hubbard appeared before a blue backdrop festooned with the words Columbia Business School. If he was supposed to be cowed or disarmed by the bluster or flattery, he did not show it.
It is absolutely possible, Ali, both in terms of models of policy effects on the recovery and historical experience, he said, in a tone that was professorial but not patronizing, If you look at the recovery from 74, 75, or 81, 82, you can easily get job growth in this range. We have the wrong policy mix. Weve had a nasty shock, were in a different situation, but we could do a lot better.
Succinct, authoritative and unabashedly partisan. Leave aside that most economists see a vast difference between the recessions of the 70s and 80s and the crisis that began in 2008. This was exactly the sort of performance Mr. Hubbard has been delivering for the Republican candidate, both on television and in op-ed articles, for more than a year. Straddling the occasionally uncomfortable line between academia and politics, Mr. Hubbard is playing a role now familiar in modern campaigns: the in-house economist.
Mr. Hubbard has helped to draft many of Mr. Romneys economic and tax policies, and, at least implicitly, lent his imprimatur to others he did not conceive. The benefits are potentially mutual. If Mr. Romney is elected, Mr. Hubbard is considered a strong candidate for the job of Treasury secretary and even, after Ben S. Bernankes term expires, chairman of the Federal Reserve. (Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank, is another possible contender for the Treasury job.)
To the job of in-house economist, Mr. Hubbard brings a rare ability to translate complex policy into plain English, as well as a conservatives love for small government and a faith that cutting taxes will spur growth. During a stint as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President George W. Bush, from 2001 to 2003, Mr. Hubbard was known as the principal architect of the Bush tax cuts.
Mr. Hubbard also brings to this job a certain amount of baggage. He appeared briefly in Inside Job, a scathing and Oscar-winning 2010 documentary about the financial crisis. The film has a segment about high-profile professors who blessed many of the financial instruments that led to the fiasco. Enter Mr. Hubbard, who is presented as a leading thinker far too cozy with industries he ought to be assessing at a critical distance.
You have three more minutes, he tells an interviewer who is pressing for the names of his consulting clients. And then, as his face contorts with rage, he adds, Give it your best shot.
MR. HUBBARD is hardly the only marquee economist to parlay his experience and stature into millions of dollars, for speeches, papers and expert witness testimony. Lawrence H. Summers, once the Obama administrations top economic adviser, pocketed about $5.2 million in compensation for giving advice to a hedge fund. But in Mr. Hubbards case, some of his amply compensated work takes policy stands that buttress the viewpoints of the corporate interests that are paying him.
Thats been true of the mutual fund industry, which has paid him more than $1 million over the years. In an academic paper and a book, he took a strong position favoring the industrys approach to fees, which critics say hurt everyday investors. He was paid what he called an honorarium of $150,000 for the academic paper by the insurance arm of the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry trade and lobbying group.
Dean Hubbard is a mercenary, says John P. Freeman, emeritus professor of business and professional ethics at the University of South Carolina School of Law, who has accused the mutual fund industry of profiteering, out to protect fund managers who are taking advantage of investors.
Mr. Hubbard says the source of funding is irrelevant because his academic writing stands on its own.
Some of Mr. Hubbards extracurricular activities have also made faculty members at his Columbia Business School unhappy, because, they say, they reflect poorly on the institution. Others complain that he has run the school with a somewhat autocratic hand and feel that they have been buffaloed into casting votes and rallying behind causes that they havent necessarily supported.
One of those causes was Mr. Hubbard himself. Its been a well-kept secret, but faculty members say that in 2008, the president of Columbia, Lee C. Bollinger, wanted to bounce Mr. Hubbard from his job. Why? Nobody has offered an explanation, not even to the senior faculty members who were asked at a meeting to rally behind their leader by signing a petition of support. Neither Mr. Hubbard nor Mr. Bollinger would answer questions on the subject.
Mr. Hubbards friends and fans note that he is a conservative leading an institution dominated by liberals, and that some friction is inevitable. As for calling Mr. Hubbard a mercenary that suggests that he will fight for causes he doesnt believe in. Which, one former colleague says, is not so.
Glenn is ideologically conservative, says Ron Miller, a former economics professor at Columbia who now works for NERA, an economic consulting firm. Nobody has to pay him to say this stuff. Thats what he believes.
Mr. Hubbard declined to be interviewed for this article, citing a busy schedule. He agreed to answer questions via e-mail, though many seemed the answers of a man striving to come across as nothing-to-see-here bland. He also provided the names of some friends, many of whom wanted to underscore the same idea: the guy is not bland.
Did you know, for instance, that he has a brother who is a country music star? asked Kevin A. Hassett, a friend and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Hubbards younger brother, Gregg known to fans as Hobie is a member of Sawyer Brown, a country rock band that gained fame via Star Search, a sort of precursor to American Idol.
Hes always had a great sense of humor, says Gregg Hubbard, speaking by telephone before a flight to a concert. He recounts celebrating his 40th birthday in New York City and sharing a gift he had just been given, a Razor scooter, with his brother. We were with my older nephew, he says, and we took turns, the three of us, riding up and down Broadway on a scooter.
Glenn Hubbard was raised in Apopka, Fla., a suburb of Orlando known as the Indoor Foliage Capital of the World, because of its many greenhouses. His father taught at a community college, and his mother taught at the high school he attended. She is remembered by her students as both pleasant and exacting, a formidable presence whom Mr. Hubbards friends regard as the wellspring of her sons discipline and ambition.
I write a column for a local paper, says Bryan Nelson, a state representative and a onetime pupil of Ms. Hubbards, and to this day, when I run into her she has no qualms about telling me what I got wrong the grammar, the spelling.
Glenn Hubbard was an Eagle scout, a star of the chess team and a stellar student who graduated at the top of his class. He scored high enough on College Level Examination Program tests to enter the University of Central Florida with enough credits so he could graduate with two degrees in three years.
At the age of 8 or 9, we both began collecting coins, says Nelson Smith, a childhood friend and now a physician. That led to questions about currencies: how the concept of money evolved over the centuries, how systems of finance are set up. He never said, Im going to be an economist, but you could see thats where his mind was headed.
Mr. Hubbard received his masters and Ph.D. at Harvard and became a hugely productive scholar with a wide range of interests. Fellow conservatives view his work with pure reverence. From the left, you hear grudging caveats like, Hell never win the Nobel Prize. He is best known for research in tax policy and government spending programs. One influential study quantified the major role that cash flow plays in driving corporations to invest.
The lesson, says James Poterba, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an admirer of Mr. Hubbard, is that if someone is looking for policy instruments that might raise investment, then lower corporate rates could do it because you change the current availability of cash for firms.
On behalf of the Romney campaign, Mr. Hubbard has argued that the Obama administration has stuck the economy in a slow growth trap, as it was put in a recent position paper, The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs, of which he was a co-author.
The way out of this trap, he and his co-authors wrote, is to reduce federal spending, cut marginal income tax rates by 20 percent across the board and gradually reduce the growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors. He would also like to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial legislation and the Affordable Care Act.
That paper, of course, is a campaign document, but if Mr. Hubbard has any differences with Mr. Romney on economic matters, he wont name them. I support Governor Romneys economic program, he wrote when asked if his candidate had any taken positions he does not support.
If Mr. Hubbard becomes Treasury secretary, cutting taxes would very likely be his highest priority. Altering the tax code to encourage savings and bolster investment has been one of his favorite causes. While serving under President Bush as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he pushed to reduce dividend taxes to zero. (Ultimately, the top tax rate on dividends was cut by more than half, to 15 percent.)
In that job, he also demonstrated great skills as political player. He turned the council, which had existed until then mainly to rah-rah administration policy, into a force in Washington.
Glenn usurped the Treasury Department on tax policy, says Leonard E. Burman, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University who worked at the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration. I had friends who worked at the department after I left, and they said that Glenn shifted the balance of power dramatically.
As Mr. Hubbard has moved seamlessly through the Republican upper echelons of Washington, he has also cultivated relationships in corporate suites. He serves on three corporate boards, which collectively paid him $785,000 last year. One of those is the board of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the private equity firm of which Henry R. Kravis was a co-founder. In 2010, Mr. Kravis pledged $100 million to the Columbia Business School, his alma mater, for the construction of a new building. It was the largest gift in the schools history.
DURING his eight years as dean, Mr. Hubbard has charmed some faculty members and alienated others. A few say that despite his buttoned-up appearance, he is approachable and is always up for some banter.
He was teaching a class across the hall and I would complain to him, Glenn, why is my classroom such a sauna? says Jonathan Levav, a former member of the faculty who is now an associate professor of marketing at Stanford. And he would say: Thats funny. The temperature in my classroom is perfect. When the person in power can have fun with you like that, it puts you at ease. It puts a human face on your boss.
Mr. Hubbard can take a bit of needling, too, says Raymond Horton, a professor of ethics and corporate governance at Columbia Business School.
When Romney made his 47 percent boo-boo, I went to the deans office and said Way to go, Glenn, Professor Horton says. He diplomatically declined to put Mr. Hubbards response on the record.
There is another, more prickly side to Mr. Hubbard, though it is not a side he has shown very often. One faculty member who saw it is Noel Capon, a tenured professor in the schools marketing department. In October 2010, he received a letter from Christopher J. Mayer, a professor in the finance and economics division who was then the senior vice dean, accusing him of violating a number of Columbia University rules on outside commercial ventures. The letter had what Mr. Capon considered an aggressive tone; it took him aback. After a few months and a conversation with a fellow professor, Mr. Capon concluded that Mr. Hubbard was behind what he regarded as a carefully orchestrated campaign against him. The point, he believes, was to bully him into line.
There were situations in the past where I might have made statements that challenged Glenn, says Mr. Capon, who acknowledges that he has a hard time keeping his opinion to himself. One opinion he couldnt keep to himself concerned a decision, in May 2010, to offer tenure to a professor from another university a decision he opposed. He wrote a letter saying so, copying the provost, and stating that the process had not allowed him to air his dissenting views. (The issue went away when the outside professor turned down the job.)
Eventually, Mr. Capon met with Mr. Hubbard to discuss the issues raised in Mr. Mayers October letter.
Mr. Capon says Mr. Hubbard told him that youve given me crap from the day I started and that youve been abusive from Day 1.
Mr. Hubbard says that he never said those words. I would not speak in that manner to anyone, let alone a faculty colleague, he wrote.
Mr. Mayer did not reply to e-mails requesting comment.
The dispute ultimately fizzled away. But Mr. Capon is no longer buying Mr. Hubbards placid exterior.
If hes crossed, Mr. Capon said, he can be brutal.
As dean, Mr. Hubbard has made some high-profile hires, including Patrick Bolton, a specialist in contract theory who was lured away from Princeton, and twice revamped the curriculum, to give students more flexibility in choosing classes and to shorten the time it takes to complete required courses.
Neither change was controversial, but the way some decisions have been made at the school was described as Brezhnevian by one professor, who like many interviewed for this article requested anonymity in order to preserve relationships with the school. In one vote, faculty members were asked to raise a hand if they were in favor of a particular change. There were no dissenters, several attendees recalled.
The most memorable vote came in the fall of 2008, when Mr. Mayer gathered senior faculty members and made a surprising announcement: Dean Hubbards job was in peril. President Bollinger was balking at appointing him to a second five-year term.
According to several participants, Mr. Mayer urged professors to demonstrate their support for Mr. Hubbard with a petition, which attendees were asked to sign on the spot. Several current and former faculty members used the identical word to describe the experience: bizarre.
It wasnt just that some professors, even fans of Mr. Hubbards, felt a little coerced. It was that nobody had any idea why President Bollinger wanted to jettison him.
I was not happy, one faculty member says. There was no way to have a view on the subject. It was like signing a contract that you havent read. Mr. Mayer did not reply to e-mails seeking comment.
In an e-mail, Mr. Hubbard kept his thoughts on this subject to an anodyne minimum. I am honored that President Bollinger gave me the opportunity to be dean, he wrote.
Mr. Bollinger declined to discuss this episode or respond to written questions about it. He sent an e-mail that described Mr. Hubbard as a distinguished academic economist who as dean has maintained an active, engaged voice in the public debate.
In absence of any official word, faculty members have been left to speculate about why Mr. Hubbard nearly lost his job. Nor does anyone know why Mr. Bollinger decided to reappoint him, though current and former faculty members have a pet theory: that Mr. Bollinger was worried about losing the financial support of Mr. Hubbards friends, most notably Mr. Kravis.
As several faculty members pointed out, a little acidly, Mr. Hubbard had helped to cut taxes for people like Mr. Kravis. They owed him, one professor said.
IN conversations with Columbia Business School faculty members, you hear occasional hints of irritation with Mr. Hubbard over his cameo in Inside Job and the embarrassment they say it visited on the school. Part of the reason is that the fallout led to new and more stringent conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules and that those forced many professors to drop lucrative side projects. Its as though Mr. Hubbard was caught overeating, so everyone had to go on a diet.
Others question whether it is wise for Mr. Hubbard to take on certain clients. For instance, he served as an expert witness in the defense of two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers accused of defrauding investors in 2009. Both men were ultimately acquitted, and in a recent interview, one of their lawyers, Edward Little, praised Mr. Hubbards testimony as absolutely critical. Some at the school wonder whether it served the institutions interests for its leader to be publicly linked with people accused in one of the only Wall Street cases to stem from the great recession.
Asked whether he was concerned about connecting the school to matters like the Bear Stearns prosecution, Mr. Hubbard wrote, I am comfortable that I balance my scholarship and teaching, deanship, and outside activities very well.
That balance has included work for many corporations that have generated unflattering headlines in recent years. On his résumé, in the category of consulting or advisory relationships, Mr. Hubbard lists Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. He was co-author of a paper with William C. Dudley, then the chief economist of Goldman Sachs, titled How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Facilitate Job Creation, which praised derivatives and the housing boom in 2004, as both were inflating into an epic bubble.
Credit derivative obligations have become an important element that has helped protect bank lending portfolios against loss, he and Mr. Dudley wrote.
The mutual fund industry has been a major source of income for Mr. Hubbard, and through that work he has taken a solidly pro-industry stand on a much-debated and much-litigated question: Do mutual fund advisers gouge clients by charging excessive fees? No, Mr. Hubbard argued in a paper he wrote with John C. Coates IV of Harvard Law School, titled Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry.
In the paper, the authors argued that it was essentially impossible for mutual fund advisers to overcharge on fees because the mutual fund business was so competitive. As the authors wrote, fund investors may fire advisers at any time by redeeming shares and switching to other investments.
Unlike Mr. Hubbard, who was paid that $150,000 honorarium for the paper, Professor Coates said in an interview that he had not taken any money from the Investment Company Institute and that as a matter of personal policy did not accept money in such circumstances for academic work.
Mr. Hubbard earned much more making the same pro-industry point in several court appearances, as an expert witness on behalf of corporations and mutual fund interests. One of those cases was a lawsuit by employees of ABB, a power generation products manufacturer, against the company and Fidelity, the mutual fund giant, over accusations that ABB paid excessive fees, at the employees expense, to manage the companys 401(k) plan.
During a cross-examination, Mr. Hubbard said Fidelity had paid him $420,000 for his participation in the case. About $200,000 of that was direct billings he charged $1,200 an hour and the rest came from a company called the Analysis Group, which provides teams of experts for research projects. Mr. Hubbard earned 7.5 percent of the amount that Analysis Group researchers charged Fidelity.
A federal judge in Missouri ultimately found that ABB and Fidelity had breached a number of their fiduciary duties and in March of this year ordered ABB to pay $35.2 million and Fidelity to pay $1.7 million for losses.
But Professor Freeman at the University of South Carolina says he believes that Mr. Hubbards scholarship on this subject particularly the paper he co-wrote was shoddy and did genuine damage.
Page 5 of 5)
What Hubbard and Coates have done is pour holy water on the Investment Company Institutes hopelessly stupid defense of fees charged by mutual funds, he said in a telephone interview. That Mr. Hubbard took money for the paper casts doubts on his motives, Professor Freeman says.
Mr. Hubbard wrote that he did not worry that the money might appear to influence his findings.
Any work of scholarship rises or falls on its ideas, empirical support, and argument, he wrote. Readers can then make whatever judgment they wish.
IF Mr. Hubbard becomes the Treasury secretary, the job will surely mean a drastic cut in pay. What it would mean for the rest of the country is not easy to divine; the Romney campaign has been vague on many details, particularly how it would offset a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut without adding to the deficit.
But you can get a pretty good sense from looking at the economic priorities of the George W. Bush administration, says Martin N. Baily, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton and is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Baily was a critic of the Bush tax cuts because, he says, they left the country without the wherewithal to battle the great recession.
When I read the Romney economic plan, he wrote in an e-mail, it seemed to me that it was basically the Bush plan.
There are plenty of centrist and right-of-center economists who think that Mr. Hubbard would make a fine Treasury secretary. They are impressed by his intellect, trust his instincts and commend his leadership during previous stints in Washington.
Some right-leaning economists, though, have reservations. Their worry is that Mr. Hubbard is not enough of a deficit hawk, and that if he follows through with tax cuts as articulated in the Romney plan, the results could be a disaster.
Cutting taxes in 2001 wasnt a crime, says Luigi Zingales, an economist at the University of Chicago, who was one of the co-authors of an op-ed article with Mr. Hubbard. Not fixing the deficit today is. If you think hes a guy wholl go ahead and play the same strategy, which I have to say most people do, then well ultimately wind up with an even bigger deficit. I trust hes smart enough not to play the same strategy.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #158 on:
October 19, 2012, 08:02:42 AM »
As was mentioned tangentially in the Media thread, Mitt's answer in Debate 2 to a question on women's issues was how he was unsatisfied with the list of candidates that was brought to him because it did not have enough women and how he told his people to bring him "binders of women" etc. and how he then appointed lots of women. The question was raised there, and I move it to this thread here,
Isn't this affirmative action?
Power User
Posts: 614
"Binders of Women"...
Reply #159 on:
October 19, 2012, 08:33:19 AM »
Leaving aside the desperate and crazy assertion that the use of this term was anything but a clumsy choice of words (I chuckled as he said it live, and thought: "he means to say binders of women's resumes" - big deal), the answer to Crafty's question is YES.
This thought occurred to me as well as I watched debate #2. I would have preferred that Romney had attacked the entire idea of a "gross disparity in women's pay" as demonstrably false for at least the last 20 years. However, that admittedly might have been getting into the weeds in an unwise manner during a political debate. The average person watching would need to have this explained in detail to grasp it, and this wasn't the right forum.
But yes - this is unquestionably affirmative action, and is as ill-advised as any other form of mandated hiring or admission preference IMHO.
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #160 on:
October 19, 2012, 08:42:45 AM »
Can we fairly distinguish this on the basis of it being voluntary?
Power User
Posts: 614
Re: Romney
Reply #161 on:
October 19, 2012, 09:58:38 AM »
Crafty: Sure. That's a clear distinction. To clarify, I think what Romney described doing was perfectly fine - it was his decision after all - and wasn't mandated.
All I'm saying is that from a broader philosophical perspective, GENERALLY, arbitrary quotas are a bad idea. Hiring a person because she is female, or gay, or black, or Catholic or whatever is illogical from a competitive standpoint in business. The over-riding primary criteria should always be how well the person can perform in that job.
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #162 on:
October 19, 2012, 10:31:26 AM »
Another possible distinction is lurking implicity in what you just said-- that of private-public.
For example, it can be argued that all groups in the society should feel represented in its government e.g. surely it would be a bad idea for a black ghetto to be protected by a white police force. Seen thusly there is nothing wrong with Romney saying that he did not want an all-male coterie of advisors. Of course most of us here suspect he was pandering (at least I do
) but the two notions I offer in my preceding post and this one can serve to distinguish what he did and hopefully neuter the precedentary claims of the progressives.
Power User
Posts: 31846
POTH: Romney's English
Reply #163 on:
October 21, 2012, 09:12:21 AM »
Gosh, Who Talks Like That Now? Romney Does
Richard Perry/The New York Times
Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, left, made cherry pies with Linda Hundt, the owner of Sweetie-licious Bakery Cafe in DeWitt, Mich., during a campaign stop in June.
By MICHAEL BARBARO and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 20, 2012
GOFFSTOWN, N.H. At a campaign stop in Rockford, Ill., not long ago, Mitt Romney sought to convey his feelings for his wife, Ann. Smitten, he said.
A Romney Soundboard
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
A sampling of some of Mitt Romney's common quips and expressions.
"Goodness Gracious"
"If You Will"
"For Pete's Sake"
"Stinks to High Heavens"
Not merely in love.
Yeah, smitten, he said. Mitt was smitten.
It was a classic Mittism, as friends and advisers call the verbal quirks of the Republican presidential candidate. In Romneyspeak, passengers do not get off airplanes, they disembark. People do not laugh, they guffaw. Criminals do not go to jail, they land in the big house. Insults are not hurled, brickbats are.
As he seeks the office of commander in chief, Mr. Romney can sometimes seem like an editor in chief, employing a language all his own. It is polite, formal and at times anachronistic, linguistically setting apart a man who frequently struggles to sell himself to the American electorate.
It is most pronounced when he is on the stump and off the cuff, not on the stuffy and rehearsed debate stage. But Mr. Romney offered voters a dose of it during his face-off with President Obama last week, when he coined the infelicitous phrase binders full of women.
Mr. Romneys unique style of speaking has distinguished him throughout his career, influencing the word choices of those who work with and especially for him. Should he reach the White House, friends and advisers concede, the trait could be a defining feature of his public image, as memorable as Lyndon B. Johnsons foul-mouthed utterances or the first President Bushs tortured syntax.
Mr. Romney, 65, has spent four decades inside the corridors of high finance and state politics, where indecorous diction and vulgarisms abound. But he has emerged as if in a rhetorical time capsule from a well-mannered era of soda fountains and AMC Ramblers, someone whose idea of swearing is to let loose with the phrase H-E-double hockey sticks.
He actually said that, recalled Thomas Finneran, the speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives when Mr. Romney was governor. As in, go to H-E-double hockey sticks. I would think to myself, Who talks like that?
Mr. Romney, quite proudly. In fact, he seems puzzled by the fascination with something as instinctive (and immutable) as how he talks, as if somebody were asking how he breathes. Its like someone who speaks with an accent, he said in an interview. You dont hear the accent.
His Mormon faith frowns on salty language, and so does he. A man of relentless self-discipline, he made clear to lawmakers in Boston and colleagues in business that even in matters of vocabulary, he held himself to a high standard of behavior, said Geoffrey Rehnert, a former executive at Bain Capital, the firm Mr. Romney started in the 1980s. Mr. Romneys father, George, whom he idolized, shared the same style of refined and restrained speech.
Those around him are so accustomed to his verbal tics that they describe them in shorthand. Old-timey, said one aide. His 1950s language, explained another. The Gomer Pyle routine, said a third.
Asked about his bosss word preferences, Eric Fehrnstrom, a veteran Romney adviser, responded knowingly: You mean like gosh, golly, darn?
For Democratic strategists, Mr. Romneys throwback vocabulary feeds into their portrayal of a man ill-equipped for the mores and challenges of the modern age. David Axelrod, a top adviser for an Obama campaign that has adopted Forward as its slogan, once quipped that Mr. Romney must watch Mad Men, the hit television show set in Manhattan in the 1960s, and think its the evening news.
His exclamations can sound jarring to the contemporary ear or charming, depending on whom you ask. Midway into a critique of Mr. Obamas economic policies a few months ago, Mr. Romney declared: Theyve scared the dickens out of banks, he said. Theyve scared the dickens out of insurance companies.
(Page 2 of 2)
He declared, To heck with it! while urging reporters to use their fingers to dig into a box of pastries he was passing around on a plane. Darn good question, he replied to a voter in Kalamazoo, Mich., who asked how he would work with Congress if elected. (His wife also got the darn treatment in Michigan, when he enthused, Gosh, darn, she is amazing!) Thank heavens is another favorite.
For people used to peppering their speech with four-letter words, time with Mr. Romney can prove an exercise in self-control. A half-dozen people recalled the precise moment when they swore almost always accidentally in his presence.
When Robert Travaglini, then the Democratic president of the Massachusetts State Senate, would curse in front of Mr. Romney, the governor would frown and interject, Well, I wouldnt choose that diction, Mr. Travaglini recalled.
Mr. Rehnert, the former Bain executive, was mortified when a potential client he took into Mr. Romneys office promptly dropped a string of profanities. Mitt wanted to know what cats and dogs I was dragging in here, Mr. Rehnert said.
His cussing colleagues said Mr. Romney took pains not to judge them publicly. He did not impose his language preferences on us, Mr. Finneran said. But I wonder if we became a little bit more restrained because we knew this about him.
Mr. Travaglini recalled lawmakers discussing how Mr. Romney should be more in tune with the vernacular of the day and express himself more passionately.
But, he added, thats not who he is.
Mr. Romney does have his own distinctly G-rated arsenal of angry expressions Good grief, flippin, good heavens and even the occasional crap.
Perhaps the most intriguing of these is grunt. Most people just grunt. Mr. Romney, however, talks about grunting. Grunt he says, onomatopoetically, when annoyed with a last-minute change in his campaign schedule.
Many of Mr. Romneys verbal habits can sound like those of a hyper-literate graduate student who never left school. (In college, he majored in English.) He favors the gentlemanly qualifier if you will, which he invoked three times during a recent speech.
On how to reduce the debt: You have to start accumulating, if you will, reserves.
On speaking to a group of soldiers: The cadets were all lined up and sitting at attention, if you will.
On his business background: Ive had the experience of working in the real world, if you will.
In interviews, voters expressed an equal measure of admiration for and curiosity about his quaint dialect, which many described as a conspicuous break from the normally harsh tone of politicians.
Its a wonderful change, said Irene Sperling, a retiree from Allentown, Pa. Hes a gentleman.
Wendy Tonn, 63, a Romney supporter who splits her time between Michigan and Florida, said she found comfort in his vocabulary, comparing it to the simple innocence of Leave It to Beaver. We are of that era, and wed like to be returned to that kind of era, she said.
Even Dennis Miller, the comedian, has weighed in, suggesting that after four years of having a hipster president in the White House, Americans craved a gosh president.
A few acquaintances have tried to drag him linguistically into the 21st century. Mr. Finneran, an admitted serial curser, said that after years of working closely with Mr. Romney, he began to fantasize about provoking him to utter a particularly crude word.
It got to the point where I started to think that my greatest achievement of all time would be if I somehow or other got him to say the word, he said.
Once, Mr. Romney seemed on the cusp of fulfilling that wish during a heated discussion. But he caught himself. And I thought, Oh, God, my closest moment ever, Mr. Finneran said. But its not going to happen.
Power User
Posts: 12177
Allred's attack fizzles
Reply #164 on:
October 25, 2012, 03:49:46 PM »
October 25, 2012
A Fat Lot of Nothing: Romney's Testimony, Now Released, Called "Devastating" To Allred's Claims
Romney didn't testify at her divorce -- there was no hearing on it.
Rather, he testified in 1991, when the Former Mrs. Stemberg sought to re-litigate her original settlement. Romney was called in to talk about the value of the 500,000 shares in Staples she received. Or Stemberg's net worth. Something like that.
Her theory was that Stemberg had put up Romney to deliberately lowball the value of Staples. Like I've noted, this makes no sense -- if Staples stock isn't worth all that much, than The Former Mrs. Stemberg's shares from the settlement are worth less, and that increases the chances a judge would agree that the original settlement was unfair, and put it aside.
But whatever. Her claim rests on the idea that Romney knew Staples would grow in value, but lied about.
Here's the problem: As an initial investor, Romney had the option to buy a lot of Staples stock. If he really thought Staples were a surefire hit, he'd have exercised all those options, and bought as much stock as he was legally entitled to.
He didn't. He said Staples could grow, or could fail, because, apparently, he believed it could grow, or could fail. Thus he hedged his own bets, buying some Staples stock, but not as much as he was entitled to.
From the court transcript. The questions come from "Stemberg's lawyer," the article says, which I assume means Tom Stemberg, because this seems like friendly questioning. The answers are from Romney.
Q: "Thank you. Now, you say that before making the investment in Staples round C you read the statement 'Additionally, this is planned to be Staples final equity offering prior to a public offering of mid 1989.' And you say that you did not - Strike that. You say you read that statement. Let me ask you this, sir. Did you, therefore, as a result of that subscribe to the full amount to which you were entitled to subscribe?"
A: "I did not."
Q: "And why was that, sir?"
A: "Because while I believed that there was a realistic probability that we would achieve that outcome, there was also a realistic probability that we would either lose our money or we would achieve something less than that. And my personal assessment and that of my partners was that the risk that we would not achieve the plan was high enough that we should not subscribe to our full amount."
Q: "And you did not subscribe to the full amount?"
A: "We did not subscribe to the full amount."
The Former Mrs. Stemberg sold half of her shares before Staples went public. The price did indeed grow after that. Though, as a matter of fact, it seems to have grown by only modest amounts until it began taking off in the mid-nineties, then really jumped around 1998. The bigger growth came well after this 1991 relitigation.
The Former Mrs. Stemberg seemed to have done what Romney did -- hedged her bets by dumping half the stock early for some cash money, rather than pinning her hopes to an explosive gain in value. And she seems bitter about that decision of hers, and looking for someone to blame for her own decision.
If she'd kept all the 500,000 in shares, she'd be fabulously wealthy. She didn't, so she's not quite as wealthy.
She didn't have full confidence in Staples -- some, but not much. Turns out, that's the level of confidence Mitt Romney had in it, too, based on his own investments in the stock.
As Powerline says, what this has to do with Mitt Romney remains something of a mystery.
By The Way: I'm suuuuure this is nothing -- like, totes sure -- but Gloria Allred met privately with Barack Obama two weeks ago.
The Endless Divorce: And I do mean endless.
As I said, this divorce is now celebrating its silver anniversary -- its 25th anniversary -- and is as passionate as ever.
t's hardly news that Stemberg believes she settled for too little.
"The entire spectacle is about her client's divorce, which began almost twenty-five years ago. It has been litigated and re-litigated," one source with knowledge of the the divorce proceedings tells me. "She has attempted to get her settlement overturned, but failed. She appealed the decision, and failed. She tried to take her case to the State Supreme Court, and was rejected. She has accused her husband and others of defrauding her, to no avail. She has sued her attorneys for malpractice, and lost. She has declared bankruptcy, and tried to sell her story as a book and a movie, also to no avail."
[T]he court rejected Sullivan-Stemberg's request [to set aside the settlement] in 1994. Instead, Stemberg-Sullivan was found to have sold her stock expeditiously, before it matured to what it would be worth only a couple years later. "[T]he wife cannot blame the husband for her uncoerced decision to sell approximately one half of her shares prior to the initial public offering of the Staples stock," the judge ruled. She had 500,000 shares of Staples, from the first divorce settlement.
Tom Stemberg was granted a divorce on grounds of "cruel and abusive treatment," incidentally.
I guess that just about wraps this up. Not only is it a non-story, I think it's pretty plain it's such a non-story -- at least about Mitt Romney; I guess there's a story here about one of the bitterest divorced women in recent history -- not even the Obama-loving media will take this stinky bait.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney 2012 documentary
Reply #165 on:
January 21, 2014, 07:42:06 PM »
Hat tip to Big Dog
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney on Putin and Baraq
Reply #166 on:
January 26, 2014, 09:38:23 PM »
Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 09:48:50 PM by Crafty_Dog
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney and Jimmy Fallon
Reply #167 on:
January 26, 2014, 09:42:55 PM »
second post of the evening
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney and Glenn Beck
Reply #168 on:
April 23, 2014, 06:10:43 PM »
Power User
Posts: 12177
Re: Romney and Glenn Beck
Reply #169 on:
April 23, 2014, 07:59:54 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2014, 06:10:43 PM
Romney would have been better than what we have now.
Then again, a random person picked from the phone book would be better than what we have now.
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney and Glenn Beck
Reply #170 on:
April 23, 2014, 08:16:19 PM »
Quote from: G M on April 23, 2014, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 23, 2014, 06:10:43 PM
Romney would have been better than what we have now.
Then again, a random person picked from the phone book would be better than what we have now.
It was a major loss to the country, to the world, and to history, that America could not connect with Mitt Romney given the stark contrast between the candidates.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #171 on:
April 24, 2014, 08:29:39 AM »
For all his many shortcomings, essentially he was, and is, a good man who loves America, and could have been a good president of all of us.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney supports raising minimum wage
Reply #172 on:
May 10, 2014, 07:33:53 AM »
Oy vey , , ,
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney supports raising minimum wage
Reply #173 on:
May 10, 2014, 09:18:06 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on May 10, 2014, 07:33:53 AM
Oy vey , , ,
I take back the thought that Romney might have been a great President. Why wouldn't he point out any ONE of the points on his own 59 point economic plan:
Probably because he hasn't read it and doesn't believe in his own plan. (Minimum Wage isn't in there!) Instead he endorses more of the Obama-leftist shrink the workforce plan.
Shall we bring back Cash for Clunkers as well?
President Obama's magnificent political success can be attributed to one main cause: weak opponents.
Power User
Posts: 4213
I wish I could be as optimistic as you.
Reply #174 on:
May 10, 2014, 09:31:45 AM »
Doug writes,
"President Obama's magnificent political success can be attributed to one main cause: weak opponents."
No doubt Republican candidates are all with flaws.
But we are up against a very antagonistic media.
We are up against a very antagonistic educational class.
We are up against racial and gender and class politics.
We are up against buying of votes that cold hard taxpayer cash can buy.
Worse, "establishment Republicans" certainly are part of the problem.
Doug I hope your are right and I am wrong. I think it is too late.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney on vouchers for Vets in 2011
Reply #175 on:
May 31, 2014, 11:23:00 AM »
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #176 on:
August 04, 2014, 01:40:57 AM »
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #177 on:
August 23, 2014, 09:35:13 AM »
Romney and Paul Ryan appeared on the Kelly Files on FOX the other night. I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him.
Worth finding on youtube and taking a look.
Power User
Posts: 12177
Re: Romney
Reply #178 on:
August 23, 2014, 09:40:39 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 23, 2014, 09:35:13 AM
Romney and Paul Ryan appeared on the Kelly Files on FOX the other night. I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him.
Worth finding on youtube and taking a look.
3rd time the charm?
I hope not.
Power User
Posts: 4213
Re: Romney
Reply #179 on:
August 23, 2014, 09:55:46 AM »
"I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him"
Well they have had many years to practice.
We need someone with charisma to beat the Hillary MOB. Neither of these guys have it.
If this is the best the right can do (again) than we're sunk. So far it appears that way.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #180 on:
August 23, 2014, 09:59:17 AM »
Watch the clip.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #181 on:
August 29, 2014, 12:04:02 PM »
Romeny-Ryan on Kelly Files
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #182 on:
August 30, 2014, 09:21:51 PM »
Power User
Posts: 31846
Little help please
Reply #183 on:
September 08, 2014, 10:38:36 AM »
I'm headed out for a couple of hours.
Would someone be so kind as to post the following here on this thread:
1) Romney's piece last week in the Washington Post;
2) Romney's interview yesterday on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on FOX. I must say I found him quite presidential-- and sounding like a much better candidate than before.
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney
Reply #184 on:
September 08, 2014, 04:38:50 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 08, 2014, 10:38:36 AM
I'm headed out for a couple of hours.
Would someone be so kind as to post the following here on this thread:
1) Romney's piece last week in the Washington Post;
2) Romney's interview yesterday on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on FOX. I must say I found him quite presidential-- and sounding like a much better candidate than before.
Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military
By Mitt Romney, September 4 2014
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat beyond anything that weve seen, according to the defense secretary ) threatens and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to a new order thats based on a different set of principles, thats based on a sense of common humanity. The old order, he is saying, where Americas disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to common humanity as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.
No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbours phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.
Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China dont report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russias nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.
The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the presidents thinking: Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. The safer world trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. Failures of imagination led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.
The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.
To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.
Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.
Fox News SUnday:
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #185 on:
September 08, 2014, 07:12:34 PM »
I'm curious as to everyone's take on these two items.
PS Thank you Doug!
Power User
Posts: 12177
Re: Romney
Reply #186 on:
September 08, 2014, 08:20:44 PM »
Romney (and Palin, and us for that matter) foresaw what a catastrophe Buraq would be.
This does not mean Mittens should run again.
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney
Reply #187 on:
September 09, 2014, 09:38:57 AM »
Quote from: G M on September 08, 2014, 08:20:44 PM
Romney (and Palin, and us for that matter) foresaw what a catastrophe Buraq would be.
This does not mean Mittens should run again.
Romney foresaw but didn't make the case strongly enough or reach enough people. Same for us.
He did a nice job in this interview of making the case of administration failure and what our policies should be, without making it at all about himself.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Re: Romney
Reply #188 on:
September 09, 2014, 12:50:01 PM »
"without making it at all about himself."
Class act I thought.
"He did a nice job in this interview of making the case of administration failure and what our policies should be"
I go a bit more enthusiastic than that-- I think he did an outstanding job of making the case in a way that can rally the American people.
Power User
Posts: 31846
Romney swallows amnesty
Reply #189 on:
November 27, 2014, 11:07:54 AM »
Power User
Posts: 6171
Re: Romney swallows amnesty
Reply #190 on:
November 28, 2014, 09:08:14 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
I think we can say at this point, Romney is running for President. In some ways he is the strongest candidate. In a few crucial areas, he is not. One is Romneycare/Obamacare, and with that, the tie with Gruber.
Now he would like to reverse course on amnesty. How about telling us what changed since "self-deportation"? He has already reversed course too many times. He has too much ability to say what different people want to hear, in Massachusetts, in Republican primaries, and in a general election, and not enough adherence to principles for my taste.
What Republican strategy is that, to do it exactly Obama's way, give him credit, solve nothing and get nothing in return?
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
DBMA Espanol
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.19
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines


text:
Nursing & Allied Health
AS RADT ResourcesTuesday, July 05 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Program Effectiveness Data JRCERT Program Goals and Learner Outcomes Medication Data Form Volunteer Service Form After College ...Read more...
A.S.N. HandbookThursday, June 30 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
AD Nursing Handbook 2014 AD Nursing Handbook 2013Read more...
A.S. Radiologic Technology HandbookThursday, June 09 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
A.S. Radiologic Technology HandbookRead more...
staffFriday, April 15 2011
B.S. Radiologic Sciences StaffFriday, April 15 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Melissa O. Haye Director/Assistant Professor, Radiologic Technology Phone: (304) 327.4145 E-mail: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com Office: D-416 Angie M. Lambert MRST...Read more...
B.S. Health Services Management StaffFriday, April 15 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Director & Visiting Instructor, of Health Services Management Phone: E-mail: Office:Read more...
A.S. Nursing StaffThursday, April 14 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Billy Davis (MSN) Assistant Professor, Nursing Phone: (304) 929.5453 E-mail: email@example.com Office: HEC-E26 Bernadette M. Dragich (Ph.D., APRN, BC) ...Read more...
A.S. Radiologic Technology StaffThursday, April 14 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Vanessa Godfrey, BSRT(R) Instructor of Radiologic Technology Phone: (304) 327.4133 E-mail: email@example.com Office: D-420 Melissa O. Haye, MSRT(R) Dir...Read more...
B.S.Nursing StaffThursday, April 14 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
Carol Cofer (MSN, MEd, ACNS-BC) Professor, Nursing Phone: (304) 327.4144 E-mail: email@example.com Office: D-430 Betty N. Nash (MSN) Associate Profess...Read more...
B.S.N. HandbookWednesday, April 13 2011 Cody (BS) CHAMBERS
B.S.N. Student HandbookRead more...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've had a notice/discussion in the Donor forums for over a week and the donation page now says this, but I really want to make sure people are aware of this. Eventually it will work, but not yet.
Does the WSPCA approves of this? I want to be sure that no Marmots were harmed in the making of this new site, and that the MLO (Marmot Labour Organization) isn't going to protest the addition of the new marmots.
<Looking good so far>
We've had a notice/discussion in the Donor forums for over a week and the donation page now says this, but I really want to make sure people are aware of this. Eventually it will work, but not yet.
Looks outstanding Ciderhelm. I've been coming to this site for nearly a year now ever since I heard about it from a friend and while I miss the movies you made I realize it's to deliver a better product overall :)
I'm excited to see the rest of the stuff you guys roll out. All your newer video recruits have been awesome.
Also, apparently tankspot thinks I should switch from Tide and buy a Nissan or something, since you know its related to my interests in visiting a gaming forum. =P
I'm very much a fan! Full of character and very sleek. Needs more marmots, though.
Last edited by Ariedan; 11-16-2009 at 02:37 PM.
Very cool, great work Cider!
Looks shiny and clean. Great work Cider.
Front page is awesome! Any plans to extend this theme into the other areas as well? The darker blue background may be easier on the eyes >_>
looks very pretty i like it :D
To be honest, I'm not crazy about it. A few things:
- Lower resolutions won't be able to see any important content above the fold
- The entire right 1/3 of the content section is dedicated to an "about us"/"projections" blurb that isn't really important enough for the front page of a content-focused site
- It loads really slow, even after caching the site and revisiting
- The line spacing in the news section could use some work
To make the new design really work out and compliment the nature of the site, I'd consider moving the entire contents of the news section/square block ad into the sidebar (maybe order it like so: ad, news blurbs, about), and get the content moved back up to where it should be. I took a look at the image file sizes and you seem to have done a good job keeping them down, so I'm not sure what the problem with load times comes from, might be bloated code or your host?
Anyways, looks spiffy and I hope you keep working on it to make the perfect portal.
I can't seem to edit my own posts, but one other thing. Whatever geo-targeting you're using for the ads in the forum are serving me french ads, I'm assuming because I'm Canadian. 90% of my province doesn't even speak french, I'd look into another solution, you're losing out on some conversions there.
Really like it, Cider. Can't wait to see the rest of the site when 4.0 launches. Curious if you intend to continue the TS gear link on the homepage as I notice that's currently not included atm. (obviously I noticed cause of self-centered reasons -.- ...but, I am genuinely curious)
I think I speak for everyone when I say you should make Aliena model shirts too.


text:
An elegant addition to any collection, chandelier earrings are also always fun to wear. Four genuine teardrop blue lace agate gemstones dangle gently from sterling silver in a twisted rope teardrop shape. A fan-shaped stud in sterling silver completes the look. Flattering with either long or short hair, the classic styling of these earrings make them versatile and the movement makes them sassy. Earrings measure 2" long x 1/2" wide and have sterling silver post and clutch. Made in America with gemstones from around the world.
Beyond basic, Sincerely Essentials create the foundation for endless possibilities within your Sincerely, Carolyn Pollack wardrobe. Created in response to your request for classic statement pieces and perfect complements to the collections you cherish.
Like all fine jewelry, Carolyn Pollack Sterling Silver Jewelry should be handled carefully. Store jewelry in a plastic bag, dry and wrapped in tissue paper, when not being worn or displayed. Clean sterling silver with a silver polishing cloth when necessary, but never subject to chlorine, silver dips, chemical solutions or ultrasonic cleaners, as these substances can cause the genuine gemstones to discolor. Never wear jewelry in a swimming pool.


text:
Public Affairs Office Phone (803) 898-5464
Contact: Danny Brazell Fax (803) 898-5446
Email: email@example.com
April 10, 2003
Revenue Department offering drive-thru forms service
Taxpayers who haven't yet found the time to complete their 2002 income tax returns can get a little help next week if they need forms. South Carolina Department of Revenue employees will be on station in front of the Columbia Department of Revenue headquarters office Monday April 14 and Tuesday April 15 to hand out income tax forms during the Department's annual drive-thru forms service. The service will be available 7a.m. – 6 p.m. each day.
All state income tax forms and many of the basic federal forms are available at the drive-thru service. The Columbia office is located at 301 Gervais Street (the same location as the State Museum). Signs will be posted to direct taxpayers to the drive-thru area. Department employees will meet taxpayers at their cars and taxpayers are asked not to get out of their cars in the drive-thru area. The drive-thru service will be available rain or shine. Taxpayers also can drop off their completed state and federal income tax returns at the drive-thru.
Taxpayers who file state income tax returns electronically have until May 1 to file and pay any taxes owed. This extended deadline does not apply to federal returns. Taxpayers can download a Request for Extension of Time, form SC4868, from the Department's web site, www.sctax.org, if they think they will not make the April 15 deadline for filing paper returns or the May 1 deadline for filing electronically.
Military personnel serving in a designated combat zone have 180 days after they leave the combat zone to file their returns and pay any taxes owed. Information on this filing extension and other tax relief granted military personnel can be found in the policy document "Temporary Revenue Procedure #03-2," which is available at the Department of Revenue web site under "Policy Documents."
Listed below are the current Department of Revenue income tax processing statistics. The Department expects to receive more than 2.1 million income tax returns this year.
Processing Statistics:
As of April 10, 2003
Total returns processed:
Paper returns processed:
Electronic returns processed:
% of Total Filed Electronic:
Total refunds issued:
Average refund:
Home / Contact DOR


text:
Weapons at War: Coast Guard DVD
Sale Price: $19.99
To Order by Phone Call 1-800-933-6249
- Additional Details
- Format: Color, DVD-Video, NTSC
- Rating: Not Rated
- Number of Discs: 1
- Run Time: 50 Minutes
- Region: Region 1
- Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
- Language: English
- Studio: History Channel
- DVD Release Date: August 19, 1999
America's oldest armed force has been in existence for over 200 years. Though often overlooked, the Coast Guard plays a vital role in our national defense.
WEAPONS AT WAR tells the often-surprising story of the Coast Guard in action. Learn how it has fought alongside the other branches of the services and see rare combat footage of the Coast Guard in battle. Go aboard their ships for a look at what life is like in the Guard, and watch as they carry out their more familiar patrol and rescue missions.
From their Colonial-era origins to their changing role in the military today, this is the story of the COAST GUARD.


text:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines "license" as "the whole or a part of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of...Read more »
The Committee on Regulation studies procedures applicable to the control of private economic activity, including ways to reduce costs and increase effectiveness of agency programs.
Committee Contacts
Committee Meetings & Events
October 29, 2014 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
October 15, 2014 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
September 24, 2014 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
April 22, 2014 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
March 20, 2014 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
Symposium on New Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation(Committee on Regulation)
November 14, 2013 Committee Meeting (Committee on Administration and Management)
November 6, 2013 Committee Meeting(Committee on Administration and Management)
October 29, 2013 Committee Meeting (Committee on Administration and Management)
April 29, 2013 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
April 2, 2013 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
March 4, 2013 Committee Meeting(Committee on Regulation)
Committee Research Projects
Since 1983, the Regulatory Information Service Center within the General Services Administration has published the Unified Agenda, which is intended to provide a...Read more »
Background Information: Though independent regulatory agencies are not subject to the benefit-cost analysis requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,...Read more »
The Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b, generally requires multi-member federal agencies (e.g., FCC, SEC) to hold their meetings in public and to give advance...Read more »
Background Information: In order to ensure that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' (OIRA) review of rules proceeds in a timely manner, EO 12,866...Read more »
Committee Members
|H. Russell Frisby, Jr.
|Committee Chair, Public Member
|Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
|James Ming Chen
|Public Member
|Michigan State University
|H. Clayton Cook Jr.
|Senior Fellow
|Seward & Kissel LLP
|Susan E. Dudley
|Public Member
|Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University
|E. Donald Elliott
|Senior Fellow
|Yale Law School/Covington & Burling LLP
|Michael A. Fitzpatrick
|Public Member
|General Electric Company
|Amy S. Friend
|Government Member
|Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
|Meredith Fuchs
|Government Member
|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
|Lisa Heinzerling
|Public Member
|Georgetown University
|Demetrios L. Kouzoukas
|Public Member
|United HealthCare Medicare & Retirement
|Christina E. McDonald
|Government Member
|Department of Homeland Security
|David W. Ogden
|Public Member
|Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
|Richard Osterman
|Government Member
|Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
|Richard L. Revesz
|Public Member
|New York University School of Law
|Carrie F. Ricci
|Government Member
|Department of Agriculture
|Jonathan Rose
|Senior Fellow
|Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
|Catherine M. Sharkey
|Public Member
|New York University School of Law
|Anne K. Small
|Government Member
|Securities and Exchange Commission
|Peter L. Strauss
|Senior Fellow
|Columbia Law School
|Elana J. Tyrangiel
|Government Member
|Department of Justice
|David Vladeck
|Senior Fellow
|Georgetown University Law Center
|Christy Walsh
|Government Member
|Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
|Richard E. Wiley
|Senior Fellow
|Wiley Rein LLP


text:
Net weight: 100g / 3.53oz
Free delivery over £40
In stock
Origin: Blended
Leaf Type: Black Tea with Flavouring
Taste: Fruity and floral
Drink: With or without milk
Brew: 3-5 minutes according to taste
When to drink: Afternoon
This Piccadilly Blend Tea & Infuser Set is a great introduction to one of Whittard's unique blends. Piccadilly Blend is a highly sophisticated tea that pays homage to Whittard's expertise in creating winning combinations its customers love.
A rich black tea scattered with flower petals and the flavour of rose, strawberry and lotus, it combines the very best of British and Oriental flavours with exceptional results.
The presentation pouch is printed with a traditional striped design. Supplied with a stylish silver-plated infuser, ideal for making the perfect cup of tea for one, the set makes a lovely gift for any tea drinker.
Height: 21cm
Width: 9cm
Depth: 8cm


text:
Drug Notes
UPMC Patient Education Materials
Calculators and Assessment Tools
Anatomy Navigator
Conditions Navigator
Stools that are pale, clay, or putty-colored may be due to problems in the biliary system (the drainage system of the gallbladder, liver, and pancreas).
The liver releases bile
salts into the stool, giving it a normal brown color. You may have clay-colored stools if you have a liver infection that reduces bile production, or if the flow of bile out of the liver is blocked.
Yellow skin (jaundice) often occurs with clay-colored stools, due to the buildup of bile chemicals in the body.
Possible causes for clay-colored stools include:
There may be other causes not listed here.
Call your health care provider if your stools are not the normal brown color.
The doctor will perform a physical exam and ask questions about your medical history and symptoms. Questions may include:
Tests that may be done include:
Berk P, Korenblat K. Approach to the patient with jaundice or abnormal liver test results. In: Goldman L, Schafer AI, eds. Goldman's Cecil Medicine. 24th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2011:chap 149.
Lidofsky SD. Jaundice. In: Feldman M, Friedman LS, Sleisenger MH, eds. Sleisenger & Fordtran's Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2010:chap 20.
Jenifer K. Lehrer, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Frankford-Torresdale Hospital, Aria Health System, Philadelphia, PA. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Isla Ogilvie, PhD, and the A.D.A.M. Editorial team.
Affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences
Supplemental content provided by
A.D.A.M. Health Solutions. All rights reserved.
For help in finding a doctor or health service that suits your needs, call the UPMC Referral Service at 412-647-UPMC (8762) or 1-800-533-UPMC (8762). Select option 1.
UPMC is an equal opportunity employer. UPMC policy prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, genetics, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, disability, veteran status, or any other legally protected group status. Further, UPMC will continue to support and promote equal employment opportunity, human dignity, and racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity. This policy applies to admissions, employment, and access to and treatment in UPMC programs and activities. This commitment is made by UPMC in accordance with federal, state, and/or local laws and regulations.
Medical information made available on UPMC.com is not intended to be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. You should not rely entirely on this information for your health care needs. Ask your own doctor or health care provider any specific medical questions that you have. Further, UPMC.com is not a tool to be used in the case of an emergency. If an emergency arises, you should seek appropriate emergency medical services.
For UPMC Mercy Patients: As a Catholic hospital, UPMC Mercy abides by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, as determined by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. As such, UPMC Mercy neither endorses nor provides medical practices and/or procedures that contradict the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA UPMC.com


text:
Pleased to say An agreement has been made where both parties are now happy
I don't think that will ever be agreed upon lol
Anti climactical thread of the year!
What a disappointment, no threats of violence, offering to 'meet' face to face or anything.
Nice that this has been resolved. Often these things end ugly. Hopefully the remaining issues such as stolen ticket moneys can be sorted out as well.
Sig awaiting witty quote from someone.
If nothing else we all got some good gifs out of it.
16-bit for life http://findingdyluck.blogspot.co.uk/
just watched that about 10 times. more addictive than the meatspin
'I'm not saying I couldn't find a few minutes a day to read a forum, but somehow I've managed to make it through these past few years without being called a faggot on a daily basis.'


text:
TruVativ X0 GXP 2.2 Crankset $431.00
This Truvativ X0 GXP 2.2 10-Speed Crankset uses carbon fiber like the top shelf XX crank, but there are a few differences. Unlike the XX crank, there's no alloy spine connecting the threaded pedal insert and the crank/spindle connection. SRAM engineers figured out a way to eliminate it, instead using a stiff structural foam core inside the composite skin. Don't think for a second that it's weaker; part of SRAM's goal for XO was to make it burly enough to handle the rigors of all-mountain riding.
Another difference is that this XO crankset uses an aluminum spider where the XX spider is an integral part of the carbon crankarm assembly. While it's a few grams heavier, the XO system allows you to remove the spider if you want to change from two to three rings or vice versa. As is, this 2x10 setup has a bolt circle diameter of 80/120mm. Of course, it's an exclusive measurement, but for the chainring tooth combinations SRAM wanted to offer, it optimizes the stiffness of the rings. And stiffer chainrings mean quicker, more precise shifts.
Not only did they design their own optimized bolt circle diameters, but they re-engineered the shift ramps, pins, and cut outs on the outer chainring. On most chainrings these days, there are two sets of ramps and two drop points where the chain can get lifted or dropped quickly and under pressure. This means that twice each pedal revolution you'll hit these spots, so the shifting can be iffy if you shift at any other time. You've probably experienced this with the pause and clunk and sometimes smooth movement on other crank systems. SRAM's X0 outer ring allows perfect shifts just about all the way around the crank. They call this X-Glide. Another improvement stems from having only two rings. From the small ring, the chain can only go up, from the big ring, only down. With this in mind, each ring can be shaped specifically for its more focused purpose.
The Truvativ X0 GXP 2.2 10-Speed Crankset has Clear Coated Carbon fiber arms with a Black anodized 7075 T6 aluminum spider and chainrings and has Black, Blue, Gold, or Red color accents. It's available with either 170 or 175mm crankarms. The crankset comes in a standard double configuration or a double with a bash guard. The 42/28t and 39/26t configurations come as the standard double configuration and the bash guard can be found on the 38/24t and 36/22t options. It requires a Truvativ GXP bottom bracket (not included).
Tech Specs
Reviews & Community
What do you think of the
TruVativ X0 GXP 2.2 Crankset
? Share a...
Chris Aidan
Tough and light
I have used the X.0 drivetrain for years and the nice thing about it is that it is like a swiss clock, always precise, well built, and beautifully crafted. Abuse after abuse, beating after beating the X.O group gets the job done.
The cranks are easy to install and complement the rest of the X) group perfectly.
xo 2x10 cranks
175 38 24 the best cranks 2x10 is the was to go light and stiff Ive owned xt shimano cranks and now i'm going with sram