aguirreparsons255058

But we all know that, right? At least the Democrats know that. Senator McCain? and Governor Palin represent change we cannot believe in. Suddenly, however, you put a woman on the ticket and they automatically become "mavericks" and "reformers." If https://telegra.ph/The-Obama-Campaign-Melt-Down---So-Soon-10-07-4 buy that, I have a NYC bridge for sale.

It's a great story and now the district has the representative that really represents what they're all about. Strong conservative leadership. Forget money, she had people and they worked as hard as anyone to knock on doors and get those yards signs out.

malaysia election For those who say that the McCain? ticket represents change because he chose a woman nominee; you are using this as an excuse not to elect the first African-American President of the U.S. Admit it.

While not often used in startups, in conventional buy-sell agreements, if a company can buy back even the vested stock of a departing founder at its fair market value on termination of a service relationship, 83(b) doesn't apply. If the buy-back is at fair market value, there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the economic value of the stock. Thus, no 83(b) filing is necessary.

Considering what is best for our favorite political party (and voting accordingly) is a somewhat more evolved stance than looking only at our own personal interests. Voting for our party is "ethnocentric" behavior. Its about the same as voting for a local bill that would renovate the school in your district but voting against the bill that would provide funds to renovate the school in the neighboring district. It elevates the needs of YOUR group above the needs of OTHERS. It is also similar to thinking only your church is the one true church and all the others are wrong. (in accordance with the "Faithful" group, for readers of my blog.) This is not the most mature way to believe, behave, or vote either.

What to do with Herman Cain? Like Gingrich, he has an image to maintain. He may be setting himself up for a position in the GOP Party apparatus - just not as a candidate. Did we really expect him to be President after the elections next November? He has run a good race, picked up some worthwhile supporters (fair-weather fans?), and would fit in well as a fund-raiser and executive within the Party.

What became increasingly apparent after the conventions was the Obama campaign had no alternative strategies and had not been considering any Plan B. No advisor told Obama that Sarah might happen with the ensuing political nightmare.

Does anyone outside of political pundits, advertisers, polling services, and others profiting from the spectacle really believe that these long mind-numbing campaigns result in a more informed voter?