The job of journalists are to report the news, and ensure that it is as well documented as possible. This is well documented, it gives you all you need to either believe it of not.
You cannot, as a private citizen sue the company, but if you can convince the state AG to go after themt hat would work, but that is VERY hard to do, especially in GOP states where the businesses seem to do no wrong.
It cant be.. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The constitution regulates ONLY the government, not businesses. you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, but you can sign away your legal rights to a Business.
Again they did not take them, you gave them up "freely", just like you give up your right to privacy when you use ios or andriod, or any modern free cloud offering.
What do they have to do with anything? there are 4000 complains of overcharging STOP. That is a lot for any company, even one ATTs size.
They do not say that it is biased because 18 people used it, I am not sure how you are reading that. They are claiming it is biased because it is stacked with industry insiders. But lets look at the statistics, in employment cases arbitration favors the business pretty much 80% of the time, in trail the employee wins ~70% of the time, that is almost completely opposite. In the side businesses win it is judged by a typical non lawyer with business ties,in the other it is judged by judge and a jury.
No. You cannot have your rights taken from you, but you CAN give them away if you so desire, but it only affects that agreement. So your analogy would be more like:
"You signed a paper saying you are not human, therefore the COMPANY does not recognize you as a human being anymore.". The court and other companies would still be required to recognize you as a human, but you agreed not to be in regards to the first company.
The problem is how do you get a buisness to fix their abusive practices if you cannot group together. Grouping together for 1 case is more cost effective for both parties then not, but the business does not want to fix abusive practices that would be brought to light by group arbitration so they ban it.
If you are attempting civil remedies for fraud then youa re stuck with arbitration, but if you are trying to get criminal then you need the state AG to go after them, and good luck unless you are in a liberal state.
what drawbacks for net neutrality? the only drawback is that of the ISP trying to double dip. If you want to sell me a service then I get the service, you should not be trying to limit that service beyond the scope of the agreement.
You can ensure that you are not the ones making it uninhabitable... In addition ecosystems will not be altered but wiped out. You seem to be under the impression that we cannot be the source of our own doom, but we can.
I do love the false dilemma you present though of "REAL science" as though only the science you believe is real. That my friend is not science.
Anti war? He is looking to increase the defense by billions of dollars, putting more boots on the grround in the middle east and is threatening to attack NK...He also bows down to the religious right, he didnt destroy them.
Slashdot Mirror
The job of journalists are to report the news, and ensure that it is as well documented as possible. This is well documented, it gives you all you need to either believe it of not.
unless you are trying to stifle free speech by using the merger.
They are accused of those things, not found guilty.
You dont have to look further than his current and past open abuse of power to believe this one is probably true
PM has been switching to ecigs for a while now.
You cannot, as a private citizen sue the company, but if you can convince the state AG to go after themt hat would work, but that is VERY hard to do, especially in GOP states where the businesses seem to do no wrong.
It cant be.. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The constitution regulates ONLY the government, not businesses. you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, but you can sign away your legal rights to a Business.
How when they all use forced arbitration.
Again they did not take them, you gave them up "freely", just like you give up your right to privacy when you use ios or andriod, or any modern free cloud offering.
it is illegal to torture and murder pets.. lol
What do they have to do with anything? there are 4000 complains of overcharging STOP. That is a lot for any company, even one ATTs size.
They do not say that it is biased because 18 people used it, I am not sure how you are reading that. They are claiming it is biased because it is stacked with industry insiders. But lets look at the statistics, in employment cases arbitration favors the business pretty much 80% of the time, in trail the employee wins ~70% of the time, that is almost completely opposite. In the side businesses win it is judged by a typical non lawyer with business ties,in the other it is judged by judge and a jury.
No. You cannot have your rights taken from you, but you CAN give them away if you so desire, but it only affects that agreement. So your analogy would be more like:
"You signed a paper saying you are not human, therefore the COMPANY does not recognize you as a human being anymore.". The court and other companies would still be required to recognize you as a human, but you agreed not to be in regards to the first company.
The problem is how do you get a buisness to fix their abusive practices if you cannot group together. Grouping together for 1 case is more cost effective for both parties then not, but the business does not want to fix abusive practices that would be brought to light by group arbitration so they ban it.
Forced arbitration would not have helped you there because your contract was with the company not the lady...
In addition in cases of frivolous cases the party does have to pay legal expenses of the other side.
So you are going with stigginit, because you dont like Franken screw the customers who are being cheated...
If you are attempting civil remedies for fraud then youa re stuck with arbitration, but if you are trying to get criminal then you need the state AG to go after them, and good luck unless you are in a liberal state.
what drawbacks for net neutrality? the only drawback is that of the ISP trying to double dip. If you want to sell me a service then I get the service, you should not be trying to limit that service beyond the scope of the agreement.
You realize that conservatism creates the police state right? It is funny how conservatives try to blame liberals for their own deeds.
hmm rape wasnt even in the list there, projecting much?
There is plenty of evidence of all of them.
yea allowing slavery to continue was "perfect" in your mind, as it was part of the intent...
So much for that whole every man has a right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.
You can ensure that you are not the ones making it uninhabitable... In addition ecosystems will not be altered but wiped out. You seem to be under the impression that we cannot be the source of our own doom, but we can.
I do love the false dilemma you present though of "REAL science" as though only the science you believe is real. That my friend is not science.
Anti war? He is looking to increase the defense by billions of dollars, putting more boots on the grround in the middle east and is threatening to attack NK...He also bows down to the religious right, he didnt destroy them.
Actually the polls were correct, the polls cannot account for the EC. Clinton did win the popular vote, which the polls mirror.