There is a pretty little map there that has been color coded for you of states and the carry / open carry status for handguns. Right at the top.
Then, since you can't be bothered to research I'll add this little tidbet from the page:
Permissive open carry states - A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle. Shown on the map to the right as "Gold Star" states; the term carries a pro-gun bias, as gun-control advocacy groups like the Brady Center generally give these states very low "scores" on their own ratings systems.
No.It only fits into different categories when the categories are defined by different groups of people.
Scientists (botonists) agree that a tomato is scientifically a fruit.
It just so happens that some people (cooks) want to call it something else due to how it is USED. That is cooks want to call it a veggie.
The US Supreme Court, in 1883, defined the tomato as a vegetable in Nix v. Hedden, but acknowledged that it was botanically a fruit. --- "Knowledge is to know that a tomato is a fruit, but wisdom is to know not to put one in a fruit salad."
From your comment it sounds as if as an advisor to Google you would recommend they never persue this patent. I don't mean this to be rude, but I'm guessing Google's folks win out in the IP valuation genre. Here's why.
Surely this patent is for any carrier (but it need not be to have value). As an example they may have cited FEDEX or UPS, but I'm confident they used more generic terminology in their claims. How many other carriers provide accurate notifications of delivery. There are thousands of carriers (yes I'm including parcel, LTL, and TL, rail, ocean freight, and heavyair, etc). Again, I'd be surprised it Google didn't have the forsight to include language making this extendable to more than just the single mode of transportation known as parcel. Even if the patent is called "parcel notification by google" that doesn't mean it is only parcel. You call it what you want. You summarize what you want. But that patented material is in the claims. I'm betting those claims mention more than one carrier (or none at all). I'm straying though.
What's to keep UPS and FEDEX from just saying "eff-it. It's too expensive to maintain and serve all this tracking crap and most people don't use it. We'll charge per view from now on... or we'll charge a subscription." You can't always trust that just because someone provides a service now that they will choose to always do so. Google has positioned themselves to step in and either do it better than the carriers or, in the event that the carriers get out of that type of work altogether, instead of the carriers. Hell, now that I think about it maybe Google's idea was to be a contracter of all of these carriers and do their tracking reporting for them.... noone else can do so now right? Maybe the patent isn't as useless and simply irrelevant as you think?
"Other companies have been giving me an estimate as to when my parcel will arrive for some number of years."
Ever try filing a patent application? Ever had one approved? How long did that process take? Give a patent lawyer a call and find out what your expected time is from the filing of the application to the granting of the patent itself. They will respond with an answer that ends with "years". It's plausible that Google filed for this patent before the other folks started using it even if they have been doing it for years.
Just a notch behind Yale? Are you using the same rating system that Cooley was using? You know, created by Cooley for Cooley. Maybe what you are referencing is by Michigan for Michigan. Or are you using some standard rating system? I have no doubts about the accuracy of your statement... IANAL or a Law student. I just read the article and know what Cooley did so I don't know who to trust. I have to ask after reading and article like that one if you are pulling a Cooley or quoting from some standardized rating system.
If you read the actual criminal complaint criminal complaint (pdf) on the eff website you'll see that this guy was a real piece of work. I don't have a problem with someone getting on their own lawn and saying whatever they want ABOUT someone else. Still gotta be careful with libel / slander, but aside from that have at it. He did that and it is mentioned in the complaint. I hope a judge says "he can do his own blog all he wants and he can tweet all he wants. He can take out ads in the paper, bla bla bla." However, when the content crosses a line then you have an issue. His threatening comments and harrassing attitude aimed directly at her in spite of already having restraining orders against him just make it over the top.
Do I hope a good judge gets this and picks it apart to remove the idea of "blogging or tweeting ABOUT a political figure / event / etc is illegal"? Absolutely. I hope they make very clear that he can say whatever he wants because he has freedom of speech. But we don't let weirdos keep coming up to women threatening to kill or rape them do we? We eventually say, okay, buster, here's a restraining order. Then if it keeps happening we slap cuffs on them. In this case he just thought he could get away with it b/c he wasn't physically in her presense, but he was doing the exact same thing. Again... I strongly suggest reading the link I provided. I'm not for limiting freedom under any circumstance, but I think this is a very simple logical extension and application of current law if applied to THIS CASE. But not just any case involving someone getting their feelings hurt b/c of twitter.
The guy wasn't just posting about her on the web. That would be a non-issue. The guy was posting TO her on her own username. He was also posting some threatening items as well. IIRC she already had an order against the guy... wtf would make him think it would be wise or even okay to badger her via any means?
I agree with what I think you were trying to say. Publicly trashing her should be fine. He should be able to create a website eff-that-politician-named-blablabla.com and rip her idealogy, hairdo, etc to pieces. He should be able to post messages to her on Slashdot at any hour of the day. He needs to be careful of libel in both of those cases, but they would not constitute harassment. Those are public and she can choose not to go there. I'm not sure he should be allowed to PM her over and over even on slashdot though. Not if he's been told to avoid contact. He's invading her space - yes her virtual space. Her accounts are hers and she presumeably has a need / use for them. She can't just ignore the accounts (or she could argue that anyway) and he is therefore crossing a line.
Agreed. Just don't come on to my lawn to do the offending. Don't try to get in my house and say you were just wanting and audience to express your view. Don't invade my personal space (virtual or physical) when you've already been warned not to do so.Is this really that difficult of a concept?
Go stand on their front door step and criticize them abnoxiously and loudly. See how long it is before your are forcibly removed and arrested.
Now that you've learned your lesson call them on their phone and do the same thing. Do so often and all hours of the day and night. See how long it is before your are arrested.
Damnit... now that you've learned your lesson... send them messages directly to their own online accounts and continue to mess with them in every way you can. Get personal with some of the messages and be threatening. See how long it is before your are visited and arrested.
Okay okay. Hmmm... maybe you should just with the tried and true methods of talking ABOUT politicians and their views and how those views suck via a method that is not the electronic equivalent of getting up in their face, on their property, etc. They'll probably find that they need not resort to violence at all and will have less jailtime than either option you propose.
It seems to me that this won't be something ruled unconstitutional... not definitely anyway.
I hate to say it, but I could understand the law in terms of FB or Instant Messenger. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand. So with FB or IM there I am chilling in my own little area and you come to my page or send a message to my username that is hateful, etc... then you are harassing me. However, if you post something to your FB page bashing me or utilize your IM to send a friend an IM about me... then well... too bad for me. I didn't have to go read it your page / content. If I get my poor little feelings hurt in the latter situation then I shouldn't have a chance of being able to say you were harassing me.
A Twitter account is kind of the same as a FB or IM account. Not everyone uses them in both directions, but some people do. If "the perp" came to the guy's twitter feed and started calling him out and belittling him (on the guys own channel) then that might be a problem. However, if the perp had his own twitter account and was bashing ABOUT the politician then it should be a non issue.
I read the article and didn't see which was the case, but I'm not sure it's as simple as we think. Ofcourse, the problem might be that the EFF says that the lawmakers didn't even differentiate between the two types of scenerios. In that case a judge might claim that while the spirit is valid the implementation of the law sucks and that it needs to be fixed.
Who hasn't gone to Borders or another bookseller, browsed their selection, found just the right book, then gone home and ordered the same title from Amazon? (Or gotten out their smartphone and ordered it right in the store.)
You know, I try to buy local. But sometimes people just don't want to help you help them. Just the other day I had been scheduled to be playing ball at a nearby gym, but the event got cancelled. There was a Borders right down the street that I used to frequent when I lived in the area so I decided I'd go hang out there and maybe get a couple of books. While I was there I found several books I was interested in, but one in particular. It seems priced kinda high though so I checked the prices online. I found it at several places for $10 less, but Borders online had it for $5 less with free shipping. I asked the manager to match their online price so I could get it that day. They said they could not. I couldn't believe it, but it's their business and they can run it how they want I suppose. I went ahead and bought the other 4 or 5 discounted books I had already grabbed (that one book would have trippled the sale) and checked out. It still surprises me that they passed up that sale for the same price they had online... and it does not surprise me that the store is being shuttered.
Imagine that same individual so confident in their car handcuffs themselves to the steering wheel b/c it was so much better than walking. Ain't getting so far on foot now are we?
I was at the library this weekend and noticed their DVD shelf. It wasn't too bad actually. I wasn't paying that much attention, but I know next time I go in there I will.
Regardless of whether the GP's math was correct, I have experienced a 100% increase over the last year. Maybe they just didn't express it well.
It was a little less than 1 year ago that I signed up with Netflix. The price was $7.99 for unlimited streaming + 1 DVD movie at a time. Within a month or two they got rid of the streaming only and said:we have a dvd + streaming option still, but it's $9.99 - or you can go streaming only for $7.99 (current price, but you lose your movie)". We had just gotten rid of cable, and Netflix under any pricing plan was a substantial savings so we decided to splurge and get the streaming +1 DVD plan. Now they are saying it will be $7.99 for streaming plus another 7.99 for the +1 DVD. So, during our less than one year term with them it has been a 100% increase in price for the exact same service. I was happy enough with Netflix to recommend them without hesitating. But that was before. Now I will not only be looking at alternatives, but I'll also have to mention my 100% increase as a disclaimer to anyone to which I recommend their service.
Just about all Christians have issues with homosexuality because it is obviously against God's law.
What most Christians don't do is enforce the law like in Leviticus. The question is not whether the old testament laws of behavior are valid, but whether people should still be held to the law and face the same consequences - by other people who are busy breaking some different law. And the answer there is, "no, not according to the NT".
No, you're not being truthful. Why didn't you provide the link fro Mark 7:9-13? Perhaps because it has nothing to do with what you said? Or atleast (even in it's little bit of context) would still not be clearly "pro child killing".
Jesus tells those trying to trick him that they are guilty of the same things. They accuse Him of eating unclean food and therefore breaking tradition - a no no. He then points out to them that they aren't exactly out killing their children every time the children act out of line. He's not getting on them for not doing it. He's getting on them for being hypocritical. And even then he's more telling them to stfu (only in a much more Christly way) because they don't even follow their own teachings than he is calling their teachings correct.
I'm only going to comment on the question you asked. Namely "why do people keep quoting it claiming that we are violating God's laws?"
The answer is simple. It is because you (you said "we" so I responded "you") are infact violating God's laws. Those "laws" concerning appropriate behavior are not changed. What has changed between the old and new testament is the believer's expected reaction to those who break laws (on accident or on purpose). The entire new testament can be summed up as "love your God, and love your neighbor". Believers should follow the old laws, but they need not be spelled out. If you love your God and your neighbor, then you won't need to be told not to murder. You won't need to be told not to steal. When in doubt, read the old testament, the laws are made pretty clear. It's not out of date in terms of telling you how you are supposed to behave - it's just not necessary if you can remember the "love" rule. The new testament makes very clear that everyone makes mistakes and that NO ONE is perfect, well ONE maybe, and that anyone judging anyone else is just as guilty of some other sin. Laws of punishment then are left to man to control society and maintain order, they are not passed down from on high.
You left out the rest of my comments - the part that covered the rest of the items you brought up.
"Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible. " -- I guess I could add to that paying for medication going forward if you even need it --
Checkups are important and man oh man wouldn't it be great if they were fully covered. But they're also not very expensive. Most doctors will take a discount if you offer to pay cash at time of service.
I just looked up the price for insulin. About $150 a month was an average without insurance.
Statins approx $100 for the namebrand stuff.
Let me know when I get to the part that middle of the road (in terms of finances) people shouldn't be able to do for themselves.
Many people can check with their county health dept. Depending on where you live the county health dept. may offer programs for people with chronic illness such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease etc. A lot of them charge on a sliding scale based on your income so it's not necessarily low-income programs. The same is true at many universities and psyc services.
I don't have all the answers, but I know sure as hell that the parent to my original comment shined an intentionally dull light on the options of how people can try to take care of themselves. I'm also not heartless and I think there are improvements that can be made... but I'm confident that lying about how things currently work and what your current options are is not the best way to participate in such a discussion.
I assume you're talking health INSURANCE. Not healthcare. Because anyone, legal us citizen or not, can receive healthcare at the ER.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Of course, you could go your route of describing the situation andleave all all the reasonable ways that a non-rich / non-poor individual could go about getting insurance AND care. Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible.
You joke (or maybe you don't), but you are right. Add in that bookshelves that store all of these worthless books would also provide excellent energy / heat.
However, as these books are being utilized for heat, maybe someone comes across an old repair manual that allows for certain mechanical contraptions to become useful again. Maybe a need to know the antidote for some type of poisoning becomes of the essence or the the proper way to treat a 3rd burn is of major concern. You had all this information on you ebook reader, but thank God the printed words were also on your a shelf near you. The reader might be zapped and the contents lost, but your paper books stand ready and able.
That depends on the author somewhat. The only musicians making anything from live performances are the good ones.The only movies making it at the box office are the good ones. So, if we're limiting it to the great authors (or good ones) then a couple of thoughts come to mind:
Speaking engagements
Book signings
I'm sure there are a lot more options for truly in demand authors.
From TFA: "The legislation makes the creation or distribution of a computer virus without a reasonable cause punishable by up to three years in prison or 500,000 yen in fines, and the acquisition or storage of one punishable by up to two years in prison or 300,000 yen in fines."
Reasonable cause is included in the law... so half your sarcasm was wasted. What a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
They shouldn't have to point it out for you. There are actually several:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States
There is a pretty little map there that has been color coded for you of states and the carry / open carry status for handguns. Right at the top.
Then, since you can't be bothered to research I'll add this little tidbet from the page:
Permissive open carry states - A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle. Shown on the map to the right as "Gold Star" states; the term carries a pro-gun bias, as gun-control advocacy groups like the Brady Center generally give these states very low "scores" on their own ratings systems.
I'm betting said state has a very low rate of violent crimes period (compared to other states). Not just gun violence.
I find it a little hard to believe that there are more violent crimes per capita in the UK, but almost four times less murders.
Couldn't be bothered to do a little research, eh?
Try this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Or just google violent crime rates by country.
Might be hard to believe... but it's true.
No.It only fits into different categories when the categories are defined by different groups of people.
Scientists (botonists) agree that a tomato is scientifically a fruit.
It just so happens that some people (cooks) want to call it something else due to how it is USED. That is cooks want to call it a veggie.
The US Supreme Court, in 1883, defined the tomato as a vegetable in Nix v. Hedden, but acknowledged that it was botanically a fruit. --- "Knowledge is to know that a tomato is a fruit, but wisdom is to know not to put one in a fruit salad."
From your comment it sounds as if as an advisor to Google you would recommend they never persue this patent. I don't mean this to be rude, but I'm guessing Google's folks win out in the IP valuation genre. Here's why.
Surely this patent is for any carrier (but it need not be to have value). As an example they may have cited FEDEX or UPS, but I'm confident they used more generic terminology in their claims. How many other carriers provide accurate notifications of delivery. There are thousands of carriers (yes I'm including parcel, LTL, and TL, rail, ocean freight, and heavyair, etc). Again, I'd be surprised it Google didn't have the forsight to include language making this extendable to more than just the single mode of transportation known as parcel. Even if the patent is called "parcel notification by google" that doesn't mean it is only parcel. You call it what you want. You summarize what you want. But that patented material is in the claims. I'm betting those claims mention more than one carrier (or none at all). I'm straying though.
What's to keep UPS and FEDEX from just saying "eff-it. It's too expensive to maintain and serve all this tracking crap and most people don't use it. We'll charge per view from now on... or we'll charge a subscription." You can't always trust that just because someone provides a service now that they will choose to always do so. Google has positioned themselves to step in and either do it better than the carriers or, in the event that the carriers get out of that type of work altogether, instead of the carriers. Hell, now that I think about it maybe Google's idea was to be a contracter of all of these carriers and do their tracking reporting for them.... noone else can do so now right? Maybe the patent isn't as useless and simply irrelevant as you think?
"Other companies have been giving me an estimate as to when my parcel will arrive for some number of years."
Ever try filing a patent application? Ever had one approved? How long did that process take? Give a patent lawyer a call and find out what your expected time is from the filing of the application to the granting of the patent itself. They will respond with an answer that ends with "years". It's plausible that Google filed for this patent before the other folks started using it even if they have been doing it for years.
Just a notch behind Yale? Are you using the same rating system that Cooley was using? You know, created by Cooley for Cooley. Maybe what you are referencing is by Michigan for Michigan. Or are you using some standard rating system? I have no doubts about the accuracy of your statement... IANAL or a Law student. I just read the article and know what Cooley did so I don't know who to trust. I have to ask after reading and article like that one if you are pulling a Cooley or quoting from some standardized rating system.
So now my ruffles will know if I'm eating them with white cheese dip or nacho cheese dip. Nice!
If you read the actual criminal complaint criminal complaint (pdf) on the eff website you'll see that this guy was a real piece of work. I don't have a problem with someone getting on their own lawn and saying whatever they want ABOUT someone else. Still gotta be careful with libel / slander, but aside from that have at it. He did that and it is mentioned in the complaint. I hope a judge says "he can do his own blog all he wants and he can tweet all he wants. He can take out ads in the paper, bla bla bla." However, when the content crosses a line then you have an issue. His threatening comments and harrassing attitude aimed directly at her in spite of already having restraining orders against him just make it over the top.
Do I hope a good judge gets this and picks it apart to remove the idea of "blogging or tweeting ABOUT a political figure / event / etc is illegal"? Absolutely. I hope they make very clear that he can say whatever he wants because he has freedom of speech. But we don't let weirdos keep coming up to women threatening to kill or rape them do we? We eventually say, okay, buster, here's a restraining order. Then if it keeps happening we slap cuffs on them. In this case he just thought he could get away with it b/c he wasn't physically in her presense, but he was doing the exact same thing. Again... I strongly suggest reading the link I provided. I'm not for limiting freedom under any circumstance, but I think this is a very simple logical extension and application of current law if applied to THIS CASE. But not just any case involving someone getting their feelings hurt b/c of twitter.
The guy wasn't just posting about her on the web. That would be a non-issue. The guy was posting TO her on her own username. He was also posting some threatening items as well. IIRC she already had an order against the guy... wtf would make him think it would be wise or even okay to badger her via any means?
I agree with what I think you were trying to say. Publicly trashing her should be fine. He should be able to create a website eff-that-politician-named-blablabla.com and rip her idealogy, hairdo, etc to pieces. He should be able to post messages to her on Slashdot at any hour of the day. He needs to be careful of libel in both of those cases, but they would not constitute harassment. Those are public and she can choose not to go there. I'm not sure he should be allowed to PM her over and over even on slashdot though. Not if he's been told to avoid contact. He's invading her space - yes her virtual space. Her accounts are hers and she presumeably has a need / use for them. She can't just ignore the accounts (or she could argue that anyway) and he is therefore crossing a line.
Agreed. Just don't come on to my lawn to do the offending. Don't try to get in my house and say you were just wanting and audience to express your view. Don't invade my personal space (virtual or physical) when you've already been warned not to do so.Is this really that difficult of a concept?
Go stand on their front door step and criticize them abnoxiously and loudly. See how long it is before your are forcibly removed and arrested.
Now that you've learned your lesson call them on their phone and do the same thing. Do so often and all hours of the day and night. See how long it is before your are arrested.
Damnit... now that you've learned your lesson... send them messages directly to their own online accounts and continue to mess with them in every way you can. Get personal with some of the messages and be threatening. See how long it is before your are visited and arrested.
Okay okay. Hmmm... maybe you should just with the tried and true methods of talking ABOUT politicians and their views and how those views suck via a method that is not the electronic equivalent of getting up in their face, on their property, etc. They'll probably find that they need not resort to violence at all and will have less jailtime than either option you propose.
It seems to me that this won't be something ruled unconstitutional... not definitely anyway.
I hate to say it, but I could understand the law in terms of FB or Instant Messenger. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand. So with FB or IM there I am chilling in my own little area and you come to my page or send a message to my username that is hateful, etc... then you are harassing me. However, if you post something to your FB page bashing me or utilize your IM to send a friend an IM about me... then well... too bad for me. I didn't have to go read it your page / content. If I get my poor little feelings hurt in the latter situation then I shouldn't have a chance of being able to say you were harassing me.
A Twitter account is kind of the same as a FB or IM account. Not everyone uses them in both directions, but some people do. If "the perp" came to the guy's twitter feed and started calling him out and belittling him (on the guys own channel) then that might be a problem. However, if the perp had his own twitter account and was bashing ABOUT the politician then it should be a non issue.
I read the article and didn't see which was the case, but I'm not sure it's as simple as we think. Ofcourse, the problem might be that the EFF says that the lawmakers didn't even differentiate between the two types of scenerios. In that case a judge might claim that while the spirit is valid the implementation of the law sucks and that it needs to be fixed.
Who hasn't gone to Borders or another bookseller, browsed their selection, found just the right book, then gone home and ordered the same title from Amazon? (Or gotten out their smartphone and ordered it right in the store.)
You know, I try to buy local. But sometimes people just don't want to help you help them. Just the other day I had been scheduled to be playing ball at a nearby gym, but the event got cancelled. There was a Borders right down the street that I used to frequent when I lived in the area so I decided I'd go hang out there and maybe get a couple of books. While I was there I found several books I was interested in, but one in particular. It seems priced kinda high though so I checked the prices online. I found it at several places for $10 less, but Borders online had it for $5 less with free shipping. I asked the manager to match their online price so I could get it that day. They said they could not. I couldn't believe it, but it's their business and they can run it how they want I suppose. I went ahead and bought the other 4 or 5 discounted books I had already grabbed (that one book would have trippled the sale) and checked out. It still surprises me that they passed up that sale for the same price they had online... and it does not surprise me that the store is being shuttered.
Imagine that same individual so confident in their car handcuffs themselves to the steering wheel b/c it was so much better than walking. Ain't getting so far on foot now are we?
I was at the library this weekend and noticed their DVD shelf. It wasn't too bad actually. I wasn't paying that much attention, but I know next time I go in there I will.
Regardless of whether the GP's math was correct, I have experienced a 100% increase over the last year. Maybe they just didn't express it well.
:we have a dvd + streaming option still, but it's $9.99 - or you can go streaming only for $7.99 (current price, but you lose your movie)". We had just gotten rid of cable, and Netflix under any pricing plan was a substantial savings so we decided to splurge and get the streaming +1 DVD plan. Now they are saying it will be $7.99 for streaming plus another 7.99 for the +1 DVD. So, during our less than one year term with them it has been a 100% increase in price for the exact same service. I was happy enough with Netflix to recommend them without hesitating. But that was before. Now I will not only be looking at alternatives, but I'll also have to mention my 100% increase as a disclaimer to anyone to which I recommend their service.
It was a little less than 1 year ago that I signed up with Netflix. The price was $7.99 for unlimited streaming + 1 DVD movie at a time. Within a month or two they got rid of the streaming only and said
Just about all Christians have issues with homosexuality because it is obviously against God's law.
What most Christians don't do is enforce the law like in Leviticus. The question is not whether the old testament laws of behavior are valid, but whether people should still be held to the law and face the same consequences - by other people who are busy breaking some different law. And the answer there is, "no, not according to the NT".
No, you're not being truthful. Why didn't you provide the link fro Mark 7:9-13? Perhaps because it has nothing to do with what you said? Or atleast (even in it's little bit of context) would still not be clearly "pro child killing".
Jesus tells those trying to trick him that they are guilty of the same things. They accuse Him of eating unclean food and therefore breaking tradition - a no no. He then points out to them that they aren't exactly out killing their children every time the children act out of line. He's not getting on them for not doing it. He's getting on them for being hypocritical. And even then he's more telling them to stfu (only in a much more Christly way) because they don't even follow their own teachings than he is calling their teachings correct.
I'm only going to comment on the question you asked. Namely "why do people keep quoting it claiming that we are violating God's laws?"
The answer is simple. It is because you (you said "we" so I responded "you") are infact violating God's laws. Those "laws" concerning appropriate behavior are not changed. What has changed between the old and new testament is the believer's expected reaction to those who break laws (on accident or on purpose). The entire new testament can be summed up as "love your God, and love your neighbor". Believers should follow the old laws, but they need not be spelled out. If you love your God and your neighbor, then you won't need to be told not to murder. You won't need to be told not to steal. When in doubt, read the old testament, the laws are made pretty clear. It's not out of date in terms of telling you how you are supposed to behave - it's just not necessary if you can remember the "love" rule. The new testament makes very clear that everyone makes mistakes and that NO ONE is perfect, well ONE maybe, and that anyone judging anyone else is just as guilty of some other sin. Laws of punishment then are left to man to control society and maintain order, they are not passed down from on high.
You left out the rest of my comments - the part that covered the rest of the items you brought up.
"Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible. " -- I guess I could add to that paying for medication going forward if you even need it --
Checkups are important and man oh man wouldn't it be great if they were fully covered. But they're also not very expensive. Most doctors will take a discount if you offer to pay cash at time of service.
I just looked up the price for insulin. About $150 a month was an average without insurance.
Statins approx $100 for the namebrand stuff.
Let me know when I get to the part that middle of the road (in terms of finances) people shouldn't be able to do for themselves.
Many people can check with their county health dept. Depending on where you live the county health dept. may offer programs for people with chronic illness such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease etc. A lot of them charge on a sliding scale based on your income so it's not necessarily low-income programs. The same is true at many universities and psyc services.
I don't have all the answers, but I know sure as hell that the parent to my original comment shined an intentionally dull light on the options of how people can try to take care of themselves. I'm also not heartless and I think there are improvements that can be made... but I'm confident that lying about how things currently work and what your current options are is not the best way to participate in such a discussion.
I assume you're talking health INSURANCE. Not healthcare. Because anyone, legal us citizen or not, can receive healthcare at the ER.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Of course, you could go your route of describing the situation andleave all all the reasonable ways that a non-rich / non-poor individual could go about getting insurance AND care. Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible.
You joke (or maybe you don't), but you are right. Add in that bookshelves that store all of these worthless books would also provide excellent energy / heat.
However, as these books are being utilized for heat, maybe someone comes across an old repair manual that allows for certain mechanical contraptions to become useful again. Maybe a need to know the antidote for some type of poisoning becomes of the essence or the the proper way to treat a 3rd burn is of major concern. You had all this information on you ebook reader, but thank God the printed words were also on your a shelf near you. The reader might be zapped and the contents lost, but your paper books stand ready and able.
That depends on the author somewhat. The only musicians making anything from live performances are the good ones.The only movies making it at the box office are the good ones. So, if we're limiting it to the great authors (or good ones) then a couple of thoughts come to mind:
Speaking engagements
Book signings
I'm sure there are a lot more options for truly in demand authors.
From TFA: "The legislation makes the creation or distribution of a computer virus without a reasonable cause punishable by up to three years in prison or 500,000 yen in fines, and the acquisition or storage of one punishable by up to two years in prison or 300,000 yen in fines." Reasonable cause is included in the law... so half your sarcasm was wasted. What a shame.