Were you not in the U.S. when this happened? You don't remember the backlash towards Arab-Americans?
I was in the U.S., but I don't remember any backlash against Arab-Americans. I do remember the press warning us that we had to beware the backlash, but everything I have seen indicates that if anything attacks on Arab-Americans went down after 9/11/
This story is BS. There will be redistricting after the census numbers are final. All of the congressional districts in a state are required to have approximately the same population. If her district "was already so small that it barely had enough people to have one in the first place", it is going to go away when they next redistrict anyway.
Health care systems work very well around the world.
Please give me one health care system that is comparable in size to that of the U.S. and serves a population that is as heterogeneous as that of the U.S. that works better than that which Congress just massively re-worked.
Considering that the same people who just passed this healthcare boondoggle, also, recently extended the Patriot Act, that really doesn't say anything.
Because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it a second time. They had enough trouble finding enough to vote against the express wishes of their constituents the first time.
Yes, the Democrats have been more successful at getting the illegal immigrant vote than the Republicans.
Even with a majority in Congress, they had to break rules because a significant number of the Democrats in Congress were reluctant to vote against the express wishes of their constituents.
Even with a majority they had to do things that are an abuse of the rules. Things that they said two years ago were unethical and wrong. Obama campaigned on not doing this sort of thing to pass "healthcare reform".
This proposal is just a bunch of hot air at this point. There is no bill introduced in either house of Congress that contains the provisions discussed in this article. This is just Lindsay Graham trying to ingratiate himself to the Democrats again. For those who think this would be used to keep illegal immigrants from receiving the benefits of this new health insurance bill, keep in mind, it is the Democrats who have been the most successful at getting their votes.
Yeah, I was oversimplifying. However, once it was set up on your computer, how would you know what it was transmitting (you know there would be regular updates to the software)?
Studies have repeatedly shown that 60% of teenagers who have had sex wish they had waited. So while the OP may have been giving an anecdote, there are studies to back up his main point.
Bollocks. When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
And those that would have benefited from the things the top 2% would have done with that money if they hadn't had to give it to the government.
Like most people, you mistake the top 2% in income for the top 2% in wealth. The top 2% in wealth are rarely in the top 2% in "income". Actually, many of the wealthiest people don't technically have very much money at all. All of their money is controlled by a trust that pays their bills for them.
If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.
Unlike the plan that we got that everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies oppose.
However, if this study holds up to further studies, it emphasizes the importance of voting against the incumbent. If this study is correct, it means that the odds are much higher that the incumbent is lying to you.
I know of no state that requires anyone to insure their own car. People are only required to purchase insurance for the damages they might cause to other people's property. So, no the logic doesn't apply.
There is no way that this plan passed by the House/Senate will create a solvent insurance industry.
It isn't intended to. THis bill is intended to bankrupt the health insurance industry so that they can justify the government taking complete control of administering health care.
Well, then you have no gripe against the Republicans opposing the bill. While there are things in there they are willing to support, the things they are opposed to are bad enough that the stuff they can support fails to make up for it.
Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration.
If they are acceptable to put into the monstrosity, why not just pass them separately? Obviously, they would be acceptable to the Republicans and to the Democrats since the Democrats put them into the bill that the American people have resoundingly expressed their opposition to. Why not pass the stuff that everybody agrees on and get back to the other stuff later?
They have submitted bills, just because the Democrats bottled them up in committee and the prss has for the most part ignored them doesn't mean they weren't submitted.
They have proposed several bills, just most of the press and the Democratic leadership have ignored them. No, it's not a "plan", it is focused solutions to address specific problems. The Democrats don't want that because if those ideas worked, they would lose their excuse for a major expansion of the federal government.
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin.
The jury is there is part to decide if the law should apply in this case. If we just wanted people to decide if the law had been followed, we would be better served by creating professional juries who were trained in the law. Lawyers (and judges are lawyers) don't want the general populace to understand this because it reduces the importance of their carefully written laws that require years of study to understand what they mean. The purpose of juries is to decide if the defendant has committed a crime, regardless of what the law says. The justification for the judges' very strict instructions is that the jury's discretion is only supposed to work one way: find the defendant not guilty even if he violated the letter of the law, if the jury thinks the defendant is guilty of what should be a crime but did not violate the letter of the law, they are supposed to find him not guilty.
What you are looking for is similar to what is used in GLP/GMP validation. You are in over your head. There is software that does what you need, but in order to get it set up so that it is legally binding requires a specialized knowledge set.
It is not that it would be impossible, or even ridiculously difficult, for you to set this up. However, if your company wants to do this in any sort of reasonable time frame (less than a year), you will need to work on this as your primary task. You will, also, need the authority to demand responses from a lot of different people in the company. If you don't have somebody who has the authority to fire anybody in the company backing it (by backing it, I mean insisting on updates every so often and leaning on whoever you are waiting for a response from) , it won't happen. Basically, the story is, this is something that requires company-wide buy in.
Slashdot Mirror
Were you not in the U.S. when this happened? You don't remember the backlash towards Arab-Americans?
I was in the U.S., but I don't remember any backlash against Arab-Americans. I do remember the press warning us that we had to beware the backlash, but everything I have seen indicates that if anything attacks on Arab-Americans went down after 9/11/
This story is BS. There will be redistricting after the census numbers are final. All of the congressional districts in a state are required to have approximately the same population. If her district "was already so small that it barely had enough people to have one in the first place", it is going to go away when they next redistrict anyway.
Health care systems work very well around the world.
Please give me one health care system that is comparable in size to that of the U.S. and serves a population that is as heterogeneous as that of the U.S. that works better than that which Congress just massively re-worked.
So, now you are going to be required to pay for that health insurance you think is too expensive or pay a fine. How is that better?
Considering that the same people who just passed this healthcare boondoggle, also, recently extended the Patriot Act, that really doesn't say anything.
Because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it a second time. They had enough trouble finding enough to vote against the express wishes of their constituents the first time.
Ohh and illegal immigrant vote? Umm Im pretty certain illegal immigrants CANT VOTE
You mean, the same way that they CANT BE HERE?
Yes, the Democrats have been more successful at getting the illegal immigrant vote than the Republicans. Even with a majority in Congress, they had to break rules because a significant number of the Democrats in Congress were reluctant to vote against the express wishes of their constituents.
Even with a majority they had to do things that are an abuse of the rules. Things that they said two years ago were unethical and wrong. Obama campaigned on not doing this sort of thing to pass "healthcare reform".
This proposal is just a bunch of hot air at this point. There is no bill introduced in either house of Congress that contains the provisions discussed in this article. This is just Lindsay Graham trying to ingratiate himself to the Democrats again. For those who think this would be used to keep illegal immigrants from receiving the benefits of this new health insurance bill, keep in mind, it is the Democrats who have been the most successful at getting their votes.
Yeah, I was oversimplifying. However, once it was set up on your computer, how would you know what it was transmitting (you know there would be regular updates to the software)?
This only works if everyone has a webcam that is sending feedback to the website. I can see how everybody on slashdot would like that.
60% seems awfully high for just society making them feel guilty.
Studies have repeatedly shown that 60% of teenagers who have had sex wish they had waited. So while the OP may have been giving an anecdote, there are studies to back up his main point.
Bollocks. When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
And those that would have benefited from the things the top 2% would have done with that money if they hadn't had to give it to the government.
Like most people, you mistake the top 2% in income for the top 2% in wealth. The top 2% in wealth are rarely in the top 2% in "income". Actually, many of the wealthiest people don't technically have very much money at all. All of their money is controlled by a trust that pays their bills for them.
If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.
Unlike the plan that we got that everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies oppose.
However, if this study holds up to further studies, it emphasizes the importance of voting against the incumbent. If this study is correct, it means that the odds are much higher that the incumbent is lying to you.
I know of no state that requires anyone to insure their own car. People are only required to purchase insurance for the damages they might cause to other people's property. So, no the logic doesn't apply.
There is no way that this plan passed by the House/Senate will create a solvent insurance industry.
It isn't intended to. THis bill is intended to bankrupt the health insurance industry so that they can justify the government taking complete control of administering health care.
Well, then you have no gripe against the Republicans opposing the bill. While there are things in there they are willing to support, the things they are opposed to are bad enough that the stuff they can support fails to make up for it.
Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration.
If they are acceptable to put into the monstrosity, why not just pass them separately? Obviously, they would be acceptable to the Republicans and to the Democrats since the Democrats put them into the bill that the American people have resoundingly expressed their opposition to. Why not pass the stuff that everybody agrees on and get back to the other stuff later?
They have submitted bills, just because the Democrats bottled them up in committee and the prss has for the most part ignored them doesn't mean they weren't submitted.
They have proposed several bills, just most of the press and the Democratic leadership have ignored them. No, it's not a "plan", it is focused solutions to address specific problems. The Democrats don't want that because if those ideas worked, they would lose their excuse for a major expansion of the federal government.
Yes, that is the idea I was trying to get at.
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin.
The jury is there is part to decide if the law should apply in this case. If we just wanted people to decide if the law had been followed, we would be better served by creating professional juries who were trained in the law. Lawyers (and judges are lawyers) don't want the general populace to understand this because it reduces the importance of their carefully written laws that require years of study to understand what they mean. The purpose of juries is to decide if the defendant has committed a crime, regardless of what the law says. The justification for the judges' very strict instructions is that the jury's discretion is only supposed to work one way: find the defendant not guilty even if he violated the letter of the law, if the jury thinks the defendant is guilty of what should be a crime but did not violate the letter of the law, they are supposed to find him not guilty.
What you are looking for is similar to what is used in GLP/GMP validation. You are in over your head. There is software that does what you need, but in order to get it set up so that it is legally binding requires a specialized knowledge set.
It is not that it would be impossible, or even ridiculously difficult, for you to set this up. However, if your company wants to do this in any sort of reasonable time frame (less than a year), you will need to work on this as your primary task. You will, also, need the authority to demand responses from a lot of different people in the company. If you don't have somebody who has the authority to fire anybody in the company backing it (by backing it, I mean insisting on updates every so often and leaning on whoever you are waiting for a response from) , it won't happen. Basically, the story is, this is something that requires company-wide buy in.