Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My company has endorsed Linda. We are a utility company that plays a critical role in serving electric and gas customers of CT. Blumenthal represents the devil for utility companies. If we lose, the customers lose. There is no way this business will thrive with reduced electric/gas rates AND the elimination of the energy tax credit. We're already performing at mediocre levels, this year. Blumenthal's ideology will only worsen the situation. In fact, we are currently undergoing a rate case with the state, in hopes of being able to increase rates in order to combat the loss of the medicare subsidy credit, which the devil Obama also took away from us. These democrats are toxic to businesses, in an already abysmal state to do business in. Shame on y'all for thinking that all utility companies are enjoying excessive profits these days, because that isn't the case.
No kidding. I would put the shame on others. Utilities have a monopoly in Connecticut and are crying because their profits are capped at 9.5%. Even with that Northeast Utilities somehow managed a quarterly profit of 64 million dollars-- which amounts to .37 per share... a 1.2% quarterly or 4.8% annualized return...
Connecticut has among the highest utility rates in the country, yet the utilities are crying?
Instead of shaming the consumer, how about some compassion for the unemployed who will struggle to pay the bill from your utility this winter to heat his home?
You really DO think companies are more important than the people they serve.. .Or maybe its just the company you work for? Sad state of affairs. I hope the next attorney general is as agressive as Blumenthal when it comes to keep these crooks in their place.
A utility should be treated like police, fire, ambulance services... not run for profit at all but instead run totally in the best interests of the consumers.
... And by the way... As a US Senator, while powerful, Blumenthal will have next to zero control over the items you mentioned... But your company did present you with some nice propaganda...
While not enthusiastic about his candidacy at first, reviewing his record of fighting for the consumers of Connecticut has revealed him to be a far more qualified and more appropriate candidate than Linda McMahon. While Linda McMahon does have business experience, her business has a history of rampant illegal drug abuse, avoiding taxation through misclassifying performers as independent contractors, and laying off massive numbers of employees while remaining profitable.
Additionally nothing in Linda's past points to any reason for her to be a US senator except the expansion of her personal power and her encouragement of continued cooperate personhood in the US which continues to give corporate entities rights that were endowed for the citizenry-- not business entities.
While not enthusiastic about his candidacy at first, reviewing his record of fighting for the consumers of Connecticut has revealed him to be a far more qualified and more appropriate candidate than Linda McMahon. While Linda McMahon does have business experience, her business has a history of rampant illegal drug abuse, avoiding taxation through misclassifying performers as independent contractors, and laying off massive numbers of employees while remaining profitable.
Additionally nothing in Linda's past points to any reason for her to be a US senator except the expansion of her personal power and her encouragement of continued cooperate personhood in the US which continues to give corporate entities rights that were endowed for the citizenry-- not business entities.
The New York Post has just endorsed LINDA: In Case You Missed It: The New York Post Endorses Linda « Linda McMahon for Senate (http://www.linda2010.com/news/2010/10/in-case-you-missed-it-the-new-york-post-endorses-linda/ - broken link)
Now, your comment is flawed on numerous accounts. Linda's WWE business is ENTERTAINMENT. A wrestler's decision to take drugs is completely out of her control, and has no bearing on one's ability to successfully run a profitable business.
Second, laying off employees is an unnecessary evil that businesses must do to remain profitable. What's the point in running a business if it becomes unprofitable? Duh! Linda is here to prevent this exact type of thing from happening with businesses in CT. And she makes her point very clear. Democrats tend to increase taxes, which hurt businesses. A business' natural response is to either layoff employees or increase prices/rates. That's how the American enterprise system works, my friend.
Blumenthal was on government payroll his entire career and has NO IDEA how to create a job, as we have seen at the debate on Monday night, when he made a complete fool out of himself.
Plus, Blumenthal is damn ugly and looks like his skin is covered in burnt wax.
The New York Post has just endorsed LINDA: In Case You Missed It: The New York Post Endorses Linda « Linda McMahon for Senate (http://www.linda2010.com/news/2010/10/in-case-you-missed-it-the-new-york-post-endorses-linda/ - broken link)
The NY POST endorses the Republican about 95% of the time. No surprise there. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch-- You know the guy who owns fox news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321
Now, your comment is flawed on numerous accounts. Linda's WWE business is ENTERTAINMENT. A wrestler's decision to take drugs is completely out of her control, and has no bearing on one's ability to successfully run a profitable business.
She helped to engender an environment where taking steroids was almost a necessity to perform with her company. The decision that the performers face is to take steroids and illegally portray the physical image that WWE required, or find another line of work. If you think that has no bearing on a companies "success" I guess you can vote for Linda.
For me the ethics of someone who would run a company that even passively allows illegal drug use (in the name of profits) are questionable. Why didn't Linda-- titan of industry-- do something about the drug use among the wrestlers her company (ab)used? Why didn't she take a stand against the illegality and physical danger of such behavior? Why didn't she do more than a PR job when several wrestlers died prematurely due to steroid abuse?
It may have improved WWE's bottom line (which I know to you is the most important thing) but her passive endorsement of illegal drug abuse cost lives, and furthered the culture of dysmorphic body...
To me while you claim it may be "good business" it's poor ethics and says everything about how her ethics might be as senator...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321
Second, laying off employees is an unnecessary evil that businesses must do to remain profitable. What's the point in running a business if it becomes unprofitable? Duh! Linda is here to prevent this exact type of thing from happening with businesses in CT. And she makes her point very clear. Democrats tend to increase taxes, which hurt businesses. A business' natural response is to either layoff employees or increase prices/rates. That's how the American enterprise system works, my friend.
Please don't condescend. I know how American enterprise works. I have been a corporate officer at two Fortune 500 companies. I have run two independent business-- one of which was sold to the third largest real estate company in the world. I vetted venture capital investments for the third largest tech fund in the world. When you have my resume, you can lecture me on business, until then, please spare me.
There are layoffs to preserve profitability, and return to share holders. Then there are layoffs based on greed. If the CEO is able to take home 46 million dollars, and her husband COO a similar amount, I see little reason to lay off 100 Connecticut residents who need their paychecks to feed their families. If they had no function in the company why were they hired in the first place? Sounds like poor management to me? Microsoft (until last year) had never laid off an employee. Neither has Google.
The WWE layoff were hardly the line between profitability and loss.
By the way, with the current democratic administration, taxes have NEVER been lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321
Blumenthal was on government payroll his entire career and has NO IDEA how to create a job, as we have seen at the debate on Monday night, when he made a complete fool out of himself.
Plus, Blumenthal is damn ugly and looks like his skin is covered in burnt wax.
Ignoring the vapidness of your final comment, yes, Blumenthal has been a civil servant for many years. We call that experience. Linda has none. By the way, most say the debate was a draw. Some have said Linda came off like an arrogant captain of industry-- out of touch with the people... which is what she is.
Finally, on a personal note, I can't understand any gay man's sycophantic attachement to the republican party. Even if they do save you a few dollars in the short term, in the long term they have been the roadblock for true equality for gays and lesbians in the United States. Against military equality, against, gay marriage, against adoption by gay men and women... They are against me, and they are against you. How do you morally justify voting for a party whose very platform limits your own participation in society and seeks to grant you fewer rights than heterosexual fellow citizens?
The NY POST endorses the Republican about 95% of the time. No surprise there. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch-- You know the guy who owns fox news?
She helped to engender an environment where taking steroids was almost a necessity to perform with her company. The decision that the performers face is to take steroids and illegally portray the physical image that WWE required, or find another line of work. If you think that has no bearing on a companies "success" I guess you can vote for Linda.
For me the ethics of someone who would run a company that even passively allows illegal drug use (in the name of profits) are questionable. Why didn't Linda-- titan of industry-- do something about the drug use among the wrestlers her company (ab)used? Why didn't she take a stand against the illegality and physical danger of such behavior? Why didn't she do more than a PR job when several wrestlers died prematurely due to steroid abuse?
It may have improved WWE's bottom line (which I know to you is the most important thing) but her passive endorsement of illegal drug abuse cost lives, and furthered the culture of dysmorphic body...
To me while you claim it may be "good business" it's poor ethics and says everything about how her ethics might be as senator...
Please don't condescend. I know how American enterprise works. I have been a corporate officer at two Fortune 500 companies. I have run two independent business-- one of which was sold to the third largest real estate company in the world. I vetted venture capital investments for the third largest tech fund in the world. When you have my resume, you can lecture me on business, until then, please spare me.
There are layoffs to preserve profitability, and return to share holders. Then there are layoffs based on greed. If the CEO is able to take home 46 million dollars, and her husband COO a similar amount, I see little reason to lay off 100 Connecticut residents who need their paychecks to feed their families. If they had no function in the company why were they hired in the first place? Sounds like poor management to me? Microsoft (until last year) had never laid off an employee. Neither has Google.
The WWE layoff were hardly the line between profitability and loss.
By the way, with the current democratic administration, taxes have NEVER been lower.
Ignoring the vapidness of your final comment, yes, Blumenthal has been a civil servant for many years. We call that experience. Linda has none. By the way, most say the debate was a draw. Some have said Linda came off like an arrogant captain of industry-- out of touch with the people... which is what she is.
Finally, on a personal note, I can't understand any gay man's sycophantic attachement to the republican party. Even if they do save you a few dollars in the short term, in the long term they have been the roadblock for true equality for gays and lesbians in the United States. Against military equality, against, gay marriage, against adoption by gay men and women... They are against me, and they are against you. How do you morally justify voting for a party whose very platform limits your own participation in society and seeks to grant you fewer rights than heterosexual fellow citizens?
I only vote Republican if the candidate is indifferent to gay issues. Linda, thankfully is socially moderate and has no opinion on gay marriage or anything like that. She is fiscally focused. And 30% of homosexuals vote Republican. I know MANY of them, right here in CT even. Tons. For example, if Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle were running in CT, I would vote Blumenthal over them. But, luckily, Linda has no bigotry against the gay community. And she's pro-choice. Now, watch this video below, and learn something about Dick's character. I'm sorry, but there's no way you can rationalize this.
And 30% of homosexuals vote Republican. I know MANY of them, right here in CT even. Tons. For example, if Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle were running in CT, I would vote Blumenthal over them. But, luckily, Linda has no bigotry against the gay community. And she's pro-choice. Now, watch this video below, and learn something about Dick's character. I'm sorry, but there's no way you can rationalize this.
They blindly vote Democrat. But most people think that 95% of gays vote democrat. In reality, only 70% do. There is a group out there called GOProud. It's a gay GOP group. There is such a thing as a liberal republican. Not all republicans are anti-gay. Sheesh.
They blindly vote Democrat. But most people think that 95% of gays vote democrat. In reality, only 70% do. There is a group out there called GOProud. It's a gay GOP group. There is such a thing as a liberal republican. Not all republicans are anti-gay. Sheesh.
Who blocks gay marriage? Republicans.
Who blocked the removal of DADT? Republicans
Who prevents gay adoptions in many states? Republicans
Who stopped gays from being a protected class in housing and employment discrimination? Republicans.
You're correct. Not all Republican politicians are homophobic. However if a politician supports homophobic legislation chances are about 95% they're a Republican.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LearnToProgram.tv endorses Blumenthal
