[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CBad]

Yeah, I’m sure he’ll be a BIG hit with the ladies.[/quote]
Hey he was almost the president… (till Ralph Nadar, Elian Gonzalez, Katherine Harris and the republicans in supreme court hatched the conspiracy to invade Iraq.)

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CBad]

Yeah, I’m sure he’ll be a BIG hit with the ladies.[/quote]
Hey he was almost the president… (till Ralph Nadar, Elian Gonzalez, Katherine Harris and the republicans in supreme court hatched the conspiracy to invade Iraq.)

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CBad]

Yeah, I’m sure he’ll be a BIG hit with the ladies.[/quote]
Hey he was almost the president… (till Ralph Nadar, Elian Gonzalez, Katherine Harris and the republicans in supreme court hatched the conspiracy to invade Iraq.)

[enron_by_the_sea]

BP falls another ~12% today. From 04/26/10 BP fell a lot, but so did other oil stocks. Comparing fall in BP to say fall in XOM, BP might have lost another
~ 48Billion in market cap so far.

If we assume worst case of 60-70 billion of liability (per the article in guardian), the stock needs to fall to at least ~25 before it moves into cheap territory (it is 37 today)

Of course, they can somehow fix the well tomorrow, and then today’s price is justified. Stock market is very efficient discounting machine in this case.

[enron_by_the_sea]

BP falls another ~12% today. From 04/26/10 BP fell a lot, but so did other oil stocks. Comparing fall in BP to say fall in XOM, BP might have lost another
~ 48Billion in market cap so far.

If we assume worst case of 60-70 billion of liability (per the article in guardian), the stock needs to fall to at least ~25 before it moves into cheap territory (it is 37 today)

Of course, they can somehow fix the well tomorrow, and then today’s price is justified. Stock market is very efficient discounting machine in this case.

[enron_by_the_sea]

BP falls another ~12% today. From 04/26/10 BP fell a lot, but so did other oil stocks. Comparing fall in BP to say fall in XOM, BP might have lost another
~ 48Billion in market cap so far.

If we assume worst case of 60-70 billion of liability (per the article in guardian), the stock needs to fall to at least ~25 before it moves into cheap territory (it is 37 today)

Of course, they can somehow fix the well tomorrow, and then today’s price is justified. Stock market is very efficient discounting machine in this case.

[enron_by_the_sea]

BP falls another ~12% today. From 04/26/10 BP fell a lot, but so did other oil stocks. Comparing fall in BP to say fall in XOM, BP might have lost another
~ 48Billion in market cap so far.

If we assume worst case of 60-70 billion of liability (per the article in guardian), the stock needs to fall to at least ~25 before it moves into cheap territory (it is 37 today)

Of course, they can somehow fix the well tomorrow, and then today’s price is justified. Stock market is very efficient discounting machine in this case.

[enron_by_the_sea]

BP falls another ~12% today. From 04/26/10 BP fell a lot, but so did other oil stocks. Comparing fall in BP to say fall in XOM, BP might have lost another
~ 48Billion in market cap so far.

If we assume worst case of 60-70 billion of liability (per the article in guardian), the stock needs to fall to at least ~25 before it moves into cheap territory (it is 37 today)

Of course, they can somehow fix the well tomorrow, and then today’s price is justified. Stock market is very efficient discounting machine in this case.

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

My notable votes by mail.

GOP Ballot:

Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)

Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)

State props:

13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.

14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides

15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.

County Props

A,B: By default voting NO

City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.

[enron_by_the_sea]

My notable votes by mail.

GOP Ballot:

Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)

Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)

State props:

13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.

14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides

15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.

County Props

A,B: By default voting NO

City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.

[Author]

Posts