Imagine that you are a merchant expressing your views in an Editorial of a newspaper about a salesman who has been trying to persuade you to buy a new
machine. Explain why you do not wish to invest in the new technology.​

This refers to your quotation regarding the new Weaving Machine which you want to sell to us. I am afraid I will not be interested to purchase it for the following reasons

1. The price of the machine is too high for the output that you claim it gives. I do not have such a large amount of money to invest in it.

2. I already have labourers doing the work by hand. There is no shortage of labour in the market and they are efficient.

3. Since the requirement is seasonal and I can lay off the workmen when work is not there, I save money at that time. The machine will always remain with me and I will always be paying interest on the loan to be taken for purchasing it, whether I am using the machine or not.

4. The machine can produce only standardized cloth, whereas different customers demand different designs. This, I can supply easily if the cloth is handmade.

5. Further, I have heard that in case the machine breaks down, it is very costly and time consuming to repair it, thus creating more problems in supply and finance for me.

For the above reasons, I regret I will not be in a position to purchase the machine offered by you.

Explanation:

citizens united v. federal election commission, case in which the u.s. supreme court on january 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. in so doing the court invalidated section 203 of the federal bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra)—also known as the mccain-feingold act for its sponsors, sen. john mccain and sen. russ feingold—as well as section 441(b) of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca), which the bcra had amended. the court also overturned in whole or in part two previous supreme court rulings: austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) and mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003).

immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. among the critics was pres. barack obama, who remarked in his state of the union address in the house of representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” his criticism provoked one of the supreme court justices in attendance, samuel a. alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”

explanation:

go out say your love and kiss your behind goodbye

explanation:

the worlds ending tommorow so hurry