Isn't in the local news.

On May 13, 4:40 pm, Maren at google <m.pur...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:

> The other thing that struck me is that Jerry said "if" and Al said
> "when" :-). The economy is somewhat cyclic, so it will go up and down. I still see
> "help wanted" signs around Hilo. Can't be that bad.
>
> Maren

Jerry's a proponent of casino gambling in Hawaii. You're right that
even in Hawaii we have our ups and downs. Even in the worse of times
people who have rare skills and abilities are needed. It really takes
being unemployed for someone like Jerry to acknowledge that we do have
hard times in Hawaii. We need to be more realistic about our economy
here.

On May 15, 4:15 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.*******> wrote:

> Being "realistic" is recognizing that legalized gambling in Hawaii,
> has some advantages that may out weigh the disadvantages. Being "realistic" is
> recognizing the simple fact that the cost of living is high in Hawaii.
> Being "realistic" is recognizing that this state is not the friendliest
> state to businesses. Being "realistic" is recognizing that rules and
> regulation and "mandates" on what business can and should do, does not
> help the business. Being "realistic" is recognizing the people in the
> state have a hard time finding a good paying job that is sufficient to be able to
> afford the things that most people in most states take for granted.

Unfortunately, you have a difficult time being "realistic". Seems that
you're more biased and prejudgemental than realistic. The economic
benefits are probably less than the tourist business, and the downside
is that casino gambling can do great harm to our society and community
and existing businesses here already.

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1210985100-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 15, 4:15 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.*******> wrote:
>
>> Being "realistic" is recognizing that legalized gambling in Hawaii,
>> has some advantages that may out weigh the disadvantages. Being
>> "realistic" is
>> recognizing the simple fact that the cost of living is high in Hawaii.
>> Being "realistic" is recognizing that this state is not the friendliest
>> state to businesses. Being "realistic" is recognizing that rules and
>> regulation and "mandates" on what business can and should do, does not
>> help the business. Being "realistic" is recognizing the people in the
>> state have a hard time finding a good paying job that is sufficient to be
>> able to
>> afford the things that most people in most states take for granted.
>
> Unfortunately, you have a difficult time being "realistic". Seems that
> you're more biased and prejudgemental than realistic. The economic
> benefits are probably less than the tourist business, and the downside
> is that casino gambling can do great harm to our society and community
> and existing businesses here already.
>

What I said has nothing to do with whether we have legalized gambling or
not. What I said is the fact. Can you prove that what I said is incorrect?

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212162300-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.*******> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>
>>> They can't lie to their shareholders-- which means essentially the
>>> general public for a publicly held corporation. You state that they
>>> can lie with impunity. Of course not.
>>
>> When did I say they can lie with impunity?
>
> I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
> responsible companies...
>
> "These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
> walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells guarnatees
> that they will be successful. And because they are human beings, some
> are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to prevent
> that from happening."
>
> Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
> system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
> criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
> to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
> deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
> punished.
>

I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they will make
mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.

On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.*******> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1212162300-sch@news.lava.net...

>> I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
>> responsible companies...
>
>> "These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
>> walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells
>> guarnatees
>> that they will be successful. And because they are human beings,
>> some
>> are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to
>> prevent
>> that from happening."
>
>> Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
>> system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
>> criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
>> to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
>> deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
>> punished.
>
> I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they
> will make
> mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.

Jerry... very few of us lie in court-- much less if we can be
convicted of a criminal offense as was Ken Lay of Enron. What you
claim to say is obvious in general. Why use it when we are discussing
something specific like this?

I suspect that lying like this is more common than most people
realize, and it would be great if there were a way to kick out a
dishonest CEO. Especially in Hawaii it would be great for our economy
if the CEOs of our Hawaii corporations were more accountable and
responsive to their shareholders. For example, we could require that
shareholders with 5% or more of the company could request a seat on
the board. If they suspect mistakes and misconduct, then they could
get the CEO fired without a messy proxy fight.

[Mod note: Take this to email guys.... there is nothing about Hawaii in
this argument...]

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212255901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.*******> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1212162300-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
>>> responsible companies...
>>
>>> "These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
>>> walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells
>>> guarnatees
>>> that they will be successful. And because they are human beings,
>>> some
>>> are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to
>>> prevent
>>> that from happening."
>>
>>> Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
>>> system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
>>> criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
>>> to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
>>> deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
>>> punished.
>>
>> I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they
>> will make
>> mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.
>
> Jerry... very few of us lie in court-- much less if we can be
> convicted of a criminal offense as was Ken Lay of Enron. What you
> claim to say is obvious in general. Why use it when we are discussing
> something specific like this?

Very few of us will ever be charged with a crime. So, we will never know
what we would do in a court. And becuase the subject was not about Ken
Lay,
it was about CEO's of large companies in general.
>
> I suspect that lying like this is more common than most people
> realize, and it would be great if there were a way to kick out a
> dishonest CEO. Especially in Hawaii it would be great for our economy
> if the CEOs of our Hawaii corporations were more accountable and
> responsive to their shareholders. For example, we could require that
> shareholders with 5% or more of the company could request a seat on
> the board. If they suspect mistakes and misconduct, then they could
> get the CEO fired without a messy proxy fight.
>

The odds are that "if" someone owns 5% or more stocks in a company, they
have a chance of being on the board, "if" that is what they want to do, and
"if" they have the qualifications to be on the board.