Why can we not pay for existing debt without approval to rack up more debt? Can you even imagine yourself walking into a bank and ask for a loan and the only reason you need the loan is to pay off a portion of your existing loan at another bank?
If we stop getting new stuff on loan, then we won't have to raise the debt ceiling.
No, I noticed how Obama was willing to "compromise" once the Republicans met his every demand. For an ex-college lecturer, the guy sure has a limited understanding of the English language.
No, your last statement is either Guy A puts up paywall or Guy A shutters website.
If Guy A choose the first option, then Guy B will cry about nothing being free anymore thus exposing his sense of entitlement to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor for nothing.
If Guy A chooses the second option, Guy B will complain about all the free stuff disappearing and wonder why because Guy B has a distorted sense of reality and has yet to realize that the refrigerator remains full because mommy buys the groceries.
And your definition is so narrow that the advice given to job-seekers about "advertising yourself" does not even exist.
"by its very nature deceptive, dishonest, and serves the needs of the advertiser, not the consumer." So the ad in the local paper for the hardware store that said they had something on sale that happened to be one of the models I had been looking at was all completely deceptive and when I got to the store and bought the thing it was actually $150 more than advertised (to match the manufacturers direct selling price) and that extra money was paid by whom? I never saw it listed on my CC statement?
"I have never seen advertising that contained a shred of truth." Seriously. The Ford ad claims that Ford dealers have new cars manufactured by Ford. What company manufacturers the Ford cars that the Ford dealer sells. I also saw an add the other day that insinuated that I could get a red Toyota something or other. Did Toyota run out of red paint?
So, you only submit resumes to companies that have asked you for one? And that would also be your plan if laid from your current employer without already having been approached by other companies?
So that we do not have to have a one-to-one relationship between patient and nurse? If these devices had no connectivity, then every patient would have to have at least one nurse in attendance at all times to monitor that the equipment is still functioning or that the various rates being measured are still within acceptable limits.
So, the system tracks what a student is doing in school and helps keep parents (at least those willing to be actively engaged) informed and able to better help their child. Exactly what part of that is wrong?
And requiring companies of a certain size to provide it for their employees was supposedly the way to guarantee that the previous landscape of most people having employer provided coverage didn't change. The Democrats removed the employer mandate on their own simply by writing a rule to ignore the law. The republicans are simply saying that if the Democrats are going to allow companies to stop providing what they used to provide that we should not then penalize the employee again. But sure, ignore that aspect as it doesn't fit your reality.
Many of those jobs moved away because of a refusal of unions to allow modernization of plants. Also, Detroit has been ruled by the Democratic party exclusively since the early 1900s. Their public schools are a joke. Everything a city is expected to provide is a joke. Mostly because of the rampant corruption involved.
"get to keep their insurance" except where they don't. Which is 99% of all plans as almost no plans covered certain prescriptions as a no cost/ no copay benefit.
"Corporate Party" is th erepublicans? Obama himself exempted corporations from being required to provide health insurance (the corporate mandate) and is the one demanding this so-called shutdown instead of agreeing to a similar relaxation of the individual mandate. Can you seriously not understand life?
The last resolution passed in the house authorized everything except enforcement of the individual mandate but the Senate (Dems) wouldn't agree to that either. In other words, Obama exempted corporations from being punished for not providing qualifying health insurance to employees, but will push this "crisis" in order to make sure that individuals are still required to have health insurance and to penalize them if they don't. Exactly who is fighting for the citizen here.
Obama himself has decided that certain parts of "his" law would be harmful and has instructed his agencies not to enforce those parts. Given that fact, are you also admitting that Obama does not have your "best interest" in mind?
Seriously. They are trying to restrict anybody from entering federal lands at all. This includes the national forests and BLM land that constitute 80% plus of the western states land area. There is seldom ever a federal employee on those lands. The have specifically asked the states to enforce a new fed rule that supposedly will not allow hunting on such lands during the "crisis". The feds spend zero dollars enforcing hunting regs on such lands as federal law and rules turn that over to the state DNRs.
Open your eyes and look around. Your "Savior" isn't out to make your life better, he is out to consolidate as much power as he can so it is easier for the next office holder to grab even more. Making your life a bit more painful while you look at all the good he is doing only helps him do that.
Slashdot Mirror
" IMF/WB or some other international finance syndicate puppet" Like Obama isn't? and probably Bush as well.
Why can we not pay for existing debt without approval to rack up more debt? Can you even imagine yourself walking into a bank and ask for a loan and the only reason you need the loan is to pay off a portion of your existing loan at another bank?
If we stop getting new stuff on loan, then we won't have to raise the debt ceiling.
No, I noticed how Obama was willing to "compromise" once the Republicans met his every demand. For an ex-college lecturer, the guy sure has a limited understanding of the English language.
So, what you are saying is that we will all die without those people writing the security procedures that aren't being followed anyway?
but have you asked yourself why the gates of the cemetery had to be locked or, in some cases, installed so they could be locked?
Just like now?
The what? That thing that Obama was paid to lecture about in Chicago but has, apparently, never actually read?
or Bush's
No, your last statement is either Guy A puts up paywall or Guy A shutters website.
If Guy A choose the first option, then Guy B will cry about nothing being free anymore thus exposing his sense of entitlement to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor for nothing.
If Guy A chooses the second option, Guy B will complain about all the free stuff disappearing and wonder why because Guy B has a distorted sense of reality and has yet to realize that the refrigerator remains full because mommy buys the groceries.
And your definition is so narrow that the advice given to job-seekers about "advertising yourself" does not even exist.
"by its very nature deceptive, dishonest, and serves the needs of the advertiser, not the consumer." So the ad in the local paper for the hardware store that said they had something on sale that happened to be one of the models I had been looking at was all completely deceptive and when I got to the store and bought the thing it was actually $150 more than advertised (to match the manufacturers direct selling price) and that extra money was paid by whom? I never saw it listed on my CC statement?
"I have never seen advertising that contained a shred of truth." Seriously. The Ford ad claims that Ford dealers have new cars manufactured by Ford. What company manufacturers the Ford cars that the Ford dealer sells. I also saw an add the other day that insinuated that I could get a red Toyota something or other. Did Toyota run out of red paint?
So, you only submit resumes to companies that have asked you for one? And that would also be your plan if laid from your current employer without already having been approached by other companies?
So that we do not have to have a one-to-one relationship between patient and nurse? If these devices had no connectivity, then every patient would have to have at least one nurse in attendance at all times to monitor that the equipment is still functioning or that the various rates being measured are still within acceptable limits.
So, the system tracks what a student is doing in school and helps keep parents (at least those willing to be actively engaged) informed and able to better help their child. Exactly what part of that is wrong?
And requiring companies of a certain size to provide it for their employees was supposedly the way to guarantee that the previous landscape of most people having employer provided coverage didn't change. The Democrats removed the employer mandate on their own simply by writing a rule to ignore the law. The republicans are simply saying that if the Democrats are going to allow companies to stop providing what they used to provide that we should not then penalize the employee again. But sure, ignore that aspect as it doesn't fit your reality.
Thanks for making my point. He is consolidating power to the office and all you care about is what he gives you by taking from someone else.
Many of those jobs moved away because of a refusal of unions to allow modernization of plants. Also, Detroit has been ruled by the Democratic party exclusively since the early 1900s. Their public schools are a joke. Everything a city is expected to provide is a joke. Mostly because of the rampant corruption involved.
"get to keep their insurance" except where they don't. Which is 99% of all plans as almost no plans covered certain prescriptions as a no cost/ no copay benefit.
Pro-tip: Rachel Maddow and pals work for a corporation.
"Corporate Party" is th erepublicans? Obama himself exempted corporations from being required to provide health insurance (the corporate mandate) and is the one demanding this so-called shutdown instead of agreeing to a similar relaxation of the individual mandate. Can you seriously not understand life?
The last resolution passed in the house authorized everything except enforcement of the individual mandate but the Senate (Dems) wouldn't agree to that either. In other words, Obama exempted corporations from being punished for not providing qualifying health insurance to employees, but will push this "crisis" in order to make sure that individuals are still required to have health insurance and to penalize them if they don't. Exactly who is fighting for the citizen here.
Every southern governor during the 1960s was a Democrat.
Obama himself has decided that certain parts of "his" law would be harmful and has instructed his agencies not to enforce those parts. Given that fact, are you also admitting that Obama does not have your "best interest" in mind?
Seriously. They are trying to restrict anybody from entering federal lands at all. This includes the national forests and BLM land that constitute 80% plus of the western states land area. There is seldom ever a federal employee on those lands. The have specifically asked the states to enforce a new fed rule that supposedly will not allow hunting on such lands during the "crisis". The feds spend zero dollars enforcing hunting regs on such lands as federal law and rules turn that over to the state DNRs.
Open your eyes and look around. Your "Savior" isn't out to make your life better, he is out to consolidate as much power as he can so it is easier for the next office holder to grab even more. Making your life a bit more painful while you look at all the good he is doing only helps him do that.