0
What else can I help you with?
What is the essential element to a marriage contract?
negotation, offer, acceptance
Can letter of credit be extended after negotation?
don't know yea right
What were the major foreign policy tools that President Barack Obama adopted?
negotation
What is one of the most important things a captive can do during negotation?
Not cooperate with any of the captor's demands.
What are negotation skills?
I would say that they are the ability of a person to see the relative perspective of both sides of an argument with the additional ability to see a path to guide them to an agreement both sides can live with.
Filing chapter 7 after negotation a debt through court?
Assuming you mean a payment plan for a debt that a creditor got a judgment for in civil court, and you are asking if you can file Chapter 7 (and qualify to do so), yes, you can, and the repayment agreement then is subject to the bankruptcy court automatic stay.
When redeeming a car after repossession is it a good time to negotiate the repo entry on your credit or is it better to wait until later?
I really don't understand what you mean by "negotiate the repo entry on your credit". You have no control over what goes on your credit, except to the extent that it is your responsibility to keep negative events from happening that will affect your credit. There is no negotiation. Even if the lender decided to not report the repossession to the credit bureaus, you will still be flagged as a slow or no pay. There is negotation on anything.Whether or not it works is up to the parties involved and how it is presented. Usually the sooner you make a SERIOUS offer that you CAN go thru with, the sooner it is accepted. The lenders want ALL they can get of the amount owed. You want to pay all you OWE with the least possible reprecussions on your CR. So find out where the two of you can meet in the middle.
What type of government did roman empire have?
Functionally, the Roman Empire (not the Roman Republic) was a combination Oligarchy/Dictatorship. The Emporer governed in a manner with near-dictatorial power; however, the Roman Senate continued to exert some power, primarily that of the purse. That is, the Senate generally controlled taxation levels (and other means to raise funds), which it used as a negotation lever with the otherwise all-powerful Emporer. By the time of the Roman Empire, the Senate had ceased to be anything approaching a democratic body. Instead, it was very oligarchical in nature - only wealthy, powerful men could be appointed, and membership was primarily determined by an individual's power base (usually, inside Rome itself). Thus, there were no Senate elections anymore, and Senators held their office as long as they could retain enough support in the populace - this support was generally perceived as either through popular opinion, or the ability to gain alliances with powerful people. The Emporer was nominally hereditary and perpetual, but backroom power politics resulted in the appointment (and deposing) of Emporers both inside and outside the "royal" family tree. Senators, on the other hand, were generally demogagues (surviving on being masters of currying general public favor) or skilled political operators (those able to gain support of the powerful and wealthy families and groups which made up the upper levels of Roman society).
What type of government did the roman republic have?
Functionally, the Roman Empire (not the Roman Republic) was a combination Oligarchy/Dictatorship. The Emporer governed in a manner with near-dictatorial power; however, the Roman Senate continued to exert some power, primarily that of the purse. That is, the Senate generally controlled taxation levels (and other means to raise funds), which it used as a negotation lever with the otherwise all-powerful Emporer. By the time of the Roman Empire, the Senate had ceased to be anything approaching a democratic body. Instead, it was very oligarchical in nature - only wealthy, powerful men could be appointed, and membership was primarily determined by an individual's power base (usually, inside Rome itself). Thus, there were no Senate elections anymore, and Senators held their office as long as they could retain enough support in the populace - this support was generally perceived as either through popular opinion, or the ability to gain alliances with powerful people. The Emporer was nominally hereditary and perpetual, but backroom power politics resulted in the appointment (and deposing) of Emporers both inside and outside the "royal" family tree. Senators, on the other hand, were generally demogagues (surviving on being masters of currying general public favor) or skilled political operators (those able to gain support of the powerful and wealthy families and groups which made up the upper levels of Roman society).
Do modern day parents negotiate with their children more than in the past?
Negotiate is a great term and one that shouldn't even enter into parenthood and children. To negotiate means you are striking a deal. I grew up in the 1950s and when my parents told us to do something we did it without question and that's the way it should be until you can show some sign of responsibility. Today some kids are given too much too fast and once out in society and the working world they feel everyone owes them something and they should get top wages right off the top without earning it. I've seen mom or dad slip the old plastic to the kids to do their own clothes shopping for school. I consider this a lack of care and also down right stupid. Since divorce is high and unwed mothers are no longer scorned upon it's difficult to work to provide a living and also give quality time to their children, but it can be done! There are still parents that are married that give little time to their children and that's simply wrong. Some of the very parents raising their young children today also want it all and aren't willing to give up certain things to raise their children or make sacrifices that our parents did in the 1940s and 1950s and even before that. Simply put, when one gets something too easily they don't appreciate it and if one doesn't learn from the parents (their job) then they have problems in their own personal lives as they begin to mature. In most parts of the world, laws [government enacted, or cultural] specify that an adult is legally responsible for both the care, AND the actions of a child. Additionally, they give the parent absolute authority in the control of the child's life, UNTIL that child reaches adulthood [age of maturity or majority]. Until that point, a child has no say or control, nor should s/he have as there has not been adequate time for gaining the education/knowledge necessary for a safe survival of the child out in "the world." As answer 1 says, negotation is NOT AN OPTION, as a child [although s/he may think otherwise] is NOT CAPABLE of knowing all the pitfalls and hazards, and therefore not qualified to participate in decision making, including negotaition. If however, a child legitimately believes a parents position is not right, s/he should be able to discuss the issue with the parent, but as also pointed out in answer 1, negotion is out as it involves "dealing," and a child is not qualified for that level of participation.j3h.
What evidence is there of appeasement in World War 2?
Britain and France permitted Germany to violate the Treay of Versailles by rearming and by putting troops into the Rheinland. Then they allowed Germany to take over Czheckoslovakia and Austria. At each stage of these aggressions it was hoped that Hitler would be appeased and not want to go any further. he always said, "This is my last territorial demand." But it was never true. he always wanted more. Michael Montagne Firstly, remember this is a contentious issue. Although popular opinion has turned "appeasement" into a word for cowardice, there were strong reasons (however disastrous the consequences )for pursuing it at the time. Appeasement refers to reducing your enemies through negotation. Arguably the biggest appeasement failure before 1939 was over Italy's attack on Abyssinia 1935-36(Ethiopia today). Despite the fact that Mussolini was a fascist, he was as alarmed by German rearmament as GB and France; he was therefore a potential ally against Hitler. However, GB and France, via the League of Nations, imposed sanctions on Italy for her actions. The sanctions were largely ineffective and this is why historians have cited this as an example of appeasement. It can be considered an "appeasement failure" because it succeeded in alienating the Italians, who increasingly saw the British and the French as weak. By October 1936 Italy had effectively been drawn into an ever closer alliance with Germany; therefore the British/French policy had increased, rather than decreased the threat that they faced. Many would of course argue that the greatest failure was Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler over his claim to the Sudenten territory in Czechoslovakia. Hitler was effectively handed this key strip of land ( which contained 3-3.5 million German speakers) with the promise that this would be the last of Germany's territorial claims. This was the infamous Munich Agreement. Infamous, because within 6 months, Hitler had seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. However, some have argued that Chamberlain had no choice. The issue brough Europe within an inch of war and due to faulty intelligence about the strength of the German Luftwaffe, Chamberlain had been told that Britain was ill prepared for war at this time. What many fail to realise is that on returning from Munich, the British government began to make more earnest preparations for the war that of course did come in 1939. Therefore, although appeasement was far from our "finest hour" it can be seen as a pragmatic tactic which delayed war for a year - giving the British and the French more time to prepare for the conflict which they realised was looming
Where did Germany go wrong?
As with the USA today(2005) - If only they had used their engineering skills for good instead of evil. Were it not for human greed and personal agendas, we would all be speaking German. As with any war, the man on the line did not know why he was there. The Germans bit off more than they could chew. The Russian front was like a frozen Viet Nam, it sucked the life from them. They could not win and dare not stop trying to. Think what you want, humans are pack animals. We will follow whatever (from our point of view) SEEMS the strongest, good or bad. "If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower." -- Adolf Hitler, Landsberg, 5 November 1925 Well they did. Willpower is futile against bombs. Check your history. It could have been worse. Visit the Medieval Roman Catholic Church and their crusades, see what might have happened if Hitler were a religious man. Once again, compare modern USA and Germany of the time: Why are they fighting? Food? Land to grow it on? NO! It is/was one dynamic, outspoken, psychotic man's ego/will and his deepest Jungian dream - to Rule The World. Hah! Not Alexander, not Adolph, not George. Not now, maybe later... Dave - King of the World!! ps: these are just ideas, edit and improve at will... PLEASE! All Germany's reasonable grievances could have been resolved by negotation. In fact, by the middle of 1938 nearly all the grievances arising out of the Versailles Treaty had been put right, except for the issue of the Polish corridor - but Germany hadn't at that stage raised that as an issue. By the end of 1938 Germany had most of what it wanted and much more besides, but it was ruled by a dictator whose ambitions were boundless. Germany 'went wrong' by continuing WW1. Hitler 'had a dream' (or a number of dreams) and was determined to make turn them into reality. There were lots of villains and few heroes. Remember that Germany was a collection of individual states before unification in 1871. It was a new country united primarily by language and the long-standing military traditions of its predecessor states. They tried to show their newfound muscle in WW I and got smacked down. But after the war, the Allies imposed a weak government and demanded enormous reparations amounting to as much as a third of the country's annual GDP. The result was the famous hyperinflation of the 1920s. At one point prices rose so quickly that workers were paid three or four times a day because cash handed out in the morning would be almost worthless by evening! The exchange rate reached several QUADRILLION marks to the dollar - that's 1 followed by **fifteen** zeros - and most citizens were reduced to grinding poverty. I spoke with a refugee who had seen neighbors die of hunger, and who himself killed a milk-wagon horse in order to get food for his family. Take that situation and even the most cultured and educated people would do just about anything to stay alive. So when a madman came along who promised a better life, who diverted attention by scapegoating Jews because many had been successful businesspeople as well as being "different from the rest of us", it was only a short step to tyranny. By 1938 it didn't matter whether earlier grievances had been resolved or not; Hitler was an absolute dictator. That year brought the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland, not to mention Kristallnacht. If you don't understand how it was possible, read about demagogues like Huey Long and Father Coughlin who took similar "populist" stances in our own country during the Depression as a way of consolidating their own power. And think about it the next time some politician rants on today about making sure we all adhere to traditonal family moral values, whatever those are. I've heard all that the last answer says several times - and it's not accurate. The post-WW1 German inflation was ended in 1923, by the German government. Despite all the problems and hardships, there followed a brief period in which Germany participated in the Roaring 20s. In the 1928 General Elections the Nazis were got 12 seats out of 600 in the Reichstag, the Nazis were laughing stock and Hitler was scorned as a *funny little man*. The form of government (Weimar Constitution) was one that the Germans chose themselves. It wasn't imposed by anyone. The conventional high school/college link between inflation and the rise of the Nazis just doesn't hold water. If there's a link it's not the obvious one. The traditional myths that we've heard time and again lack real explanatory force. Some acknowledgement that the issues are complex would be useful.
