I do not understand what is so hard for you to follow. Please explain where you are failing to grasp these simple concepts. A specific scenario was laid out and even though a bicycle was violating a law or rule, they would not be at fault if you hit them. You would be in that scenario.
Or with just the name of the ssid broadcast and a general geographic area.
You can use sites like wigle to search it out. If enough entries are put in, it prety much accurately trianglstes the location on the map. It has my old neiborhood down to withing a few feet of the apartments. A signal meter on a smart phone should get you to the front door.
I know of at least one reverse hacking incident (the hacker got hacked by its target while trying to penetrate a network) where the hacker was tracked down by reading the ssids availible on the wireless network and using a site like that to pinpoint a location.
I don't think this was ever about finding employees but enabling others to create content that people will seek so they can continue to make money from the data they collect and ads they sell.
It could also just be a way to feel better about themselves too.
I was purposely long winded in order to avoid the confusion but i guess sometimes people are slow to see the points. If you would have paid attention to the rest of the post, you wouldn't have posted that.
Someone violating a rule or law does not give you legal right to hit them. In the 5 abreast scenario, if to hit one of the bikes, you are at fault no matter how many rules they broke when you pass them in the lane they sre in.. If you are driving faster than you csn see and you stoppinng distance is beyond your line of sight, you are always at fault.
If someone blows a stop sign and you hit them, it can be your or their fault. If you had time to stop but didn't its your fault. If you do not have time to stop it is their fault.
If someone hits you when you are stopped, it is their fault. This is true almost sll the time whether bike or car or whatever its also a silly scenario to put out since the entire point of my post was about how you drive. In this scenario, the you is the other person. Suppose your car breaks in the middle of an intersection and you are stopped. No one has the right to hit your vehicle because you are blocking a travel lane.
If you are passing someone doing 5mph in the same lane and they hit you it is your fault. If you are in another lane and they enter your lane, it is their fault.
No state that i am aware of relieves you of your responsibility to operate safely just because someone else is violating a law. Well, outside of a DUI in wich case they seem to blame everything on the drunk driver regardless of who hit who.
No, google does not have too much influence. It just seems that way because few people had impactful influence before they started tossing money around. And the reason we are being flooded about it has more to do with the targets and a good PR department.
What we are seeing is largely to much PR. Influence in these areas seem to be lacking altogether else we wouldn't have these "look at us" stories all the time.
I might add that even if the law or code doesn't require that much space, it is a good idea to ensure there is enough room for the bike or even pedestrian to fall over and not be hit. I usually try for one and a third of their heighth so if they hit something and topple over, or just fall, i'm not held up with paperwork, repairs, or nightmares about a dead guy.
Do the math if you don't believe me. Show your work.
Do the math? What math, it's all the same. If the property has 1 mile road frontage or 10 feet, that 1 mile or road still needs all those services. If the property is valued at 10 dollars it still needs the same services as if the property is valued at 2 million dollars.
Ask an insurance company whether more expensive properties are more expensive to insure than cheaper properties.
That's changing the goal post a bit isn't it? Taxes do not pay the insurance coverage. the city or whatever government entity does not provide the insurance. More expensive property will cost more to insure primarily because it will cost more to replace anything of higher value. But the police and fire are not used more then cheaper properties.
So you agree that urban areas should stop subsidizing the less urban areas?
I'm not sure how you got that from my statement but there shouldn't be any subsidizing at all going on. First, a city is a city so no matter what area is in the city, the urban neighborhoods are not subsidizing the anything but the city. But the city should not be making profits either. If a city is subsidizing a county development, that shouldn't be happening outside the same mechanism the county funding has.
But the point of my comment is that one of the reason's the numbers favored the gulch community is because everything is jacked sky high in prices. If values were equal, the range would not be so different. In the article you linked to (which is about the study I linked to), none of the developments cost more to have than the revenue they brought in. So there was no subsidizing happening. The city was just collecting a bunch of profits and doing whatever with it.
First, I'm not a bike nazi or whatever they call those people who seem to always be in the way because their biking is better than a car so don't think I'm coming into this prejudiced.
Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.
It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely. That is drivers ed 101. It's annoying to slow down and pass someone who shouldn't be where they are. But the fault is yours if there is an accident like that.
If you cannot see past your headlights far enough needed to safely stop, you are driving too fast for conditions regardless of what the speed limit is. If there are hills you cannot see over, the same applies. You not being able to see something, or someone not in their lane is not an excuse to hit them. They can however come into your lane without leaving you proper time to react and it would be there fault. But the bottom line is, if they are in the lane you are driving in, it is no different then another car except you can pass them without completely changing lanes. If you hit them, it is the same as hitting another car. It doesn't matter if that other car or bike breaks 200 laws in the process of being in front of you, slowing, stopping, obstructing the flow of traffic is not a valid reason to hit them.
Have you ever went down a 4 lane city street with narrow lanes and saw a semi truck taking both lanes when they likely could squeeze into just one? The reason for that is because as long as they are in the lane (in this case two lanes) they have the right of way. If you try to squeeze by and there is an accident, it's your fault. If they try to squeeze by you and there is an accident, it's their fault. If they stay in one lane and wonder out of it which can easily happen if the road is bumpy, it's their fault. So by taking both lanes, they avoid being too close to the sidewalk, parked cars, telephone poles and whatever but also clear a right of way beside them. And yes, it is illegal for them to use two lanes instead of one.
Just think what would happen if a stationary object is in the middle of the road. What if a cinder block or something fell off a truck and you run up on it, it's all you and no one else unless someone comes back looking for it and is stupid enough to stop and ask if you saw it while broke down and sitting on top of it. It's all you if you swerve to miss it and hit another car.
I know an epileptic who had his license pulled after a single vehicle accident. He was able to get them back in about a years time but needed his doc to sign off on it. The doctor is the one who pulled his license too. The state didn't even cite him for the accident but his doctor filed the paper work, told him his license was no good and by the time he was released from the hospital, the revocation letter was sitting in the mail box. He ran up a telephone pole guide wire and flipped his car on it's roof then proceeded to bang his head and everything else not restrained by the seat belt off the steering wheel and whatever else was in the way while the seizure was happening- no damage to anything but the car and himself.
Or the more old school way that people have done for a while, record it and leave before broadcasting it. Locating the source of the recording doesn't mean much if the target is already 800 miles away.
Just don't use your mom's basement or rent a recording studio that keeps logs on who was there and when, or else you will still get popped.
A generator, tarp for a back drop, and a semi- isolated spot in the middle of nowhere (like 800 miles away as you suggest) should be good. Leave your work cell phone and regular cell phone if you are a government employee somewhere else too. If work provides it, they might track it and for the government, they can accidentally search the NSA records and stumble onto you with as much crap they collect.
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.
That is nonsense. Those things would still be there regardless of if it was 3 properties or one worth $1000 or $1,000,000 each.
People with more expensive property do not use the fire department more or the police more just because it is more expensive. People with larger lots and bigger homes do not either.
And that's how it should be, because the usual alternative is for urban areas to heavily subsidize the less urbanized areas.
Assuming their math is correct, I would like to know what âoeproperty taxes, sales taxes, and other recurring revenues,â exactly is. The recurring revenues is what has me wondering. Are they thinking city income tax or what?
Either way, the problem with the article is that a city is not supposed to be making a profit off the people. They are not a business and any money they collect over the amount for the services rendered is waste. That is unless you subscribe to some theory that it's the Lord's money and you are just serfs or something (no, that is not a god reference). The government is not supposed to be taking more than they need.
Now I just read the study and it appears that the development they claim is most beneficial is sort of skewed in comparisons to the others. First, it has over 6 million square feet in retail and office space (commercial property) compared to the 67,000 and 39,000 square feet in the other two. Plus, there is a special property tax included called urban services district tax in addition to the general services tax in the so called profitable one,
But most strikingly, the cost of living is much higher in the so called profitable one. The average cost per square foot of residential space in the profitable one was $350/sq ft. All the others ranged between $89/sq ft and $113/sq ft. That's not how it should be- unless you are going to send all the poorer people offshore somewhere.
Yep, and it also means ALL immunities, privileges and rights. Like the right to FULL healthcare now that every MAN has that right
No they do not have a right to full healthcare. They are required by law to purchase healthcare insurance. Insurance is not healthcare and there is no right to it. If you do not purchase the insurance, you will have to pay full price, with insurance, you will have to pay what the insurance doesn't cover and outside of a few specific things, that can vary a bit.
Thus the right endures until a Rightwing Bigot named Alito says otherwise
You only think that because you are wrong and something wrong stuck in your head. Even without this rulling, the same situation would be present as Obama's administration itself has already started exempting people from the birth control mandate before this case even went to court. As the majority opinion said, there is no claim that this would make it difficult for the government as they already created and implemented the alternative for churches and charities.. No one who argued this case or is in a position or power thinks the way you do on it.
Your problem with the 14th is that you added words not in the 14th in order to make your case
I added nothing to the 14th. The 14th amendment does not in any way diminish any other amendments or parts of the constitution. What I did was reference parts of the constitution and was clear with it.
The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means the 14th cannot be utilized to deny or disparage any right protected by any other amendment. If the 14th meant to remove something from the constitution or it's amendment, it would have specifically referenced it's removal or specifically spelled out a new process. This is how all changes to the constitution has been done when they conflict with a previous provision. The 17th amendment, 20th amendment, 21st amendment (which directly appeals the 18th), 22nd amendment and 23rd amendment does this specifically.
Felons, btw, who have served out their sentences,CAN NOT be stopped without reasonable suspicion, cannot be searched without probable cause and have all other rights besides those losses permitted under the 13th Amendment.
lol.. you seem to be skipping the point and thinking you are getting somewhere on a technicality about something different. Who cares if felons cannot be stopped. I made a scenario in which if the courts said they could, or even if they are on a suspended sentence for good behavior, you would lose your 4th amendment protections via the 14th if your view were to prevail.
In Texas, there is often what is referred to as the "he needed killing" law. It's basically a right of self defense that has allowed a lot of people to kill others and not get charged or released from charges. Florida and their stand your ground law might be similar. So, if because someone in Florida or Texas is allowed to own big scary military style riffles and shoot people who pose a threat to them, does the 14th mean California's or New Jersey's restrictive laws are unconstitutional? I mean the right exists at a federal level in the 2nd amendment an in at least 2 or more other state's. According to your 14th amendment theory, any state who restricts a person's rights to keep arms and protect themselves would be unconstitutional according to your supposition.
But please, by all means, point to a court case in which your concept of the 14th prevailed. I'm sure that if you are correct, you can find one or more. I think your search for this will educate you quite well on how wrong you are. This would be more obvious if the government provided the insurance instead of forcing others to.
It makes a lot of sense. For one, you don't need to store and then release the electricitt. For two, you don't need all the infrastructure upgrades for three, and probably the most important, this is somethingt the government can do without a major backlash from everyone who thinks global warming is nothing but a redistribution scheme designed to take right and wealth from the people while making government unneccesarily more powerful.
I don't think you understand. The 14th means laws are to be applied equally. So if a law violates another amendment, it doesn't mean that right or amendmet disapears, it means the law is unenforcable. If the 14th comes into play, it is unenforcable on everyone.
Your problem is that the 14th does not specifically invalidate any other provision so that provision has to remain valid. You cartainly would not insist on the same flawed logic if it was something you don'tagree with. Lets say a law that you can be stopped and searched any time the government wants. You object and win because you are a citizen but the courts allow it for felons and non citizens. You wouldn't make the claim that the 24th surpasses the fourth so the exception for citizens do not count due to the 14th surpassing the 4th.
Your argument is just a silly one with no merit. The 14th did not repeal any other amendment so if it comes into play, then the entire regulation is unenforcable. The 9th amandment makes that clear.
Because you will have to maintain them and replace them eventually. Those figures are already included in an electric bill. And if it is a business, depreciation also leads to tax advantages.
Not in any amount that would be additionsl savings.
The question is if they are actually saving or being paid to do those things. Its a valid question because it shows whether the tech is market mature or not. If it is all subsidies, it is just a cost burden to most all that do not have the luxury of taking advantage of the subsidies. But if it is market competitive, then it should fuel a trend worth joining.
I probably have deserved to be lumped in there a time or two. The cops were called because of noise complaints and i was putting liquor into the trunk because we were moving the party.
Anyways, the part thay shocked me wasn't getting slammed into the wall. The cops around here have john wayne syndrome with a touch of stupidity (seriously, showed up to a complaint about a woman threatening to kill hersel with a kitchen knife and they shot her dead with 7 shots- because she had a kitchen knife) so little surprises me with them. It was the cop's explaination of the events. I would think if he was justified, he would have just said i was beligerant and resisting arrest. But they concocted a story to make themselves look innocent.
People who hear the word mayday and politics will think communist Russia- that is if they know anything about the cold war.
Willfully ignorant, I will give you. Stupid I cannot. It is a legitimate thought process to anyone who who lived through the cold war. It drives half the country's knee jerk hatred against socialism today.
they arrest him, know who he is and that he is not a threat, realise the charges are more or less for being annoying in public, put him in the holding while processing the paperwork. He asks to make a phone call, they hand him his cell phone, he makes the post while being bored.
They likely never would have allowed it. Knowing cops, they probably didn't know they were allowing it either.
That is, I have no idea how true this would be. It's just a possible scenario to how they could have allowed it without knowing they allowed it. The part that has me is, if it was posted as him, they would have had to get his user name and password else it would have showed as someone else posting it. That's possible with the crap they have to suck info from phones, but it makes the story a little more hard to digest. Of course they could have made him log in and post it. But then Facebook would have an IP set for the police department if you could ever get to the logs.
Probably by putting his head in the way of the cop's fist.
This probably happens in real life. I got slammed against a brick wall when I was 23 or so by a cop for asking him what he just said to me as I was putting some things into the trunk of a car. I filed a complaint and he wrote in his statement that he put his hands up to signal me to stop approaching and I stumbled into them and fell back against the wall a few times.
It didn't matter that it was right after a bachelor party and there were about 4 video cameras that captured it all and the cop was obviously lying (long before cell phones had cameras in them). I was charged with obstructing justice, assaulting a police officer, disturbing the peace, in control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and destruction of public property (he siad he tore his shirt slamming me into the wall). Luckily, he was going through a bitter divorce and my lawyer knew it. He said loudly, "we talked with his wife, she said he is a habitual liar and talks a lot about the people he screws over by claiming shit that never happened and is willing to testify for us". This was in the hall waiting for the pretrial conference to start. About 20 minutes later, the prosecutor came out and offered a deal with pleading to disorderly conduct and everything else dropped. My lawyer took it.
I'm not drawing you a picture. If they are so similar that you just had to spend a second entire post describing the differences, my point still stands- people will confuse the one with the other and ignore it until it gets going and then without looking into it, fight against it.
Why do I know this? Because it happens all the time. It's like when John Stewart explained that a SOFA agreement being talked about with Iraq was an agreement on how long you can crash on somebody's couch before having to pay rent. the joke only worked because it was similar but different and you knew there would be a couple of people going "right on brother" until he explained the rest of the story.
Of course it is, for people of limited means. Which applies to most of Hobby Lobby's workers, since they don't get paid much.
The average full time non salary worker at hobby lobby makes $14 an hour. I wouldn't exactly call that not much. But you not wanting to sacrifice something to pay for a health service does not mean someone who refuses to pay for it is telling you what health care services you can have.
Bullshit: 1) Hobby Lobby was fine with covering these meds before it was mandatory
I need a cite before I will believe this. Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 methods covered by the Obama care mandate and only went to court on 4 of them. As far as anyone has said, they will still provide coverage for those 16 contraception devices.
2) They're invested in the pharmaceutical companies selling said meds
Not relevant but show me a creditable link and it needs to be one concerning the 4 contraception they took issue with.
3) All their products come from China with it's mandatory abortions
Not relevant again. Or do you think you should go to prison for something your father or brother did? They don't seem to be telling others how to live, just objecting to others telling them to ignore their faith and provide a couple specific things.
4) Arguing you have the right to to mess around with other people's lives, cuz religion, is always bullshit, whether it's contraceptives, gay rights, or segregation.
No one is arguing to mess around with other people's lives except for the government. They are saying you have to provide X even if it is against your religion and hobby lobby said no I don't and a court agreed with them. That is the facts that it boils down to if you remove all the spin.
While having to double pay for it, since health insurance is part of your compensation. Hobby Lobby is still happy to cover Viagra and vasectomies, though.
You wouldn't be double paying for it. You simply wouldn't be compensated for it the first time. You see, any benefit has to be payed before it can be counted as compensation. In this case, hobby lobby is paying everything it needs to except for the 4 contraception ways. Therefore, your compensation would be base pay plus benefits that do not include abortion coverage.
But I would watch all this compensation arguments before the IRS gets the idea that it is taxable income. You could make that argument so well that next thing you know, you will be paying taxes on your medical benefits.
Maybe you could stop being a dumbass for five seconds. Under the same logic in this ruling, if your company is owned by Jehovah's Witnesses, they could deny you coverage for blood transfusions. Or if you work for a Scientologist, any kind of psychiatric medication. Of course, SCOTUS tied themselves into pretzels to avoid that exact sort of outcome, which means they're favoring one religious sect over another, which means this is all buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.
lol.. you are funny. So if SCOTUS tied this up, then your first two premises are false. IF they are not false, then your third premise is. But none the less, I think you already knew and allowed for that.
Well, here is the problem. So what if they can do that? IT doesn't prevent those people subjected to the loss of transfusions or psychiatric medication from gaining coverage in some other way. Obama already made the insurance companies cover without cost to the charity, the contraception portions of the HHS mandate for charities of religious nature who object. So even though the religious charities do not pay for it, even though the policy they provide does not list it, the fact that someone there has insurance also gives them the option to get a separate free policy covering all of the HHS mandate that the charity o
lol.. Equal protection under the law not treatment. The contraception mandate is not law but a regulation. But that is neither here nor there, the mandate addresses the employer and the ruling addresses only certain employers. If however, the regulation had to be treated equally across everything, then it would have to be completely unenforceable across everything. You see, if a rule or law violates another rule, law, or constitutional provision, then it must be resolved. In this case, it was a law passed in 1993 by democrats and that law held supreme. The equal protection provision says nothing about the first amendment or that any law in conflict has to be resolved any specific way so if it happens to be in violation somehow, then it all has to go if you do a strict reading like that. Only congress or a court can repeal a law passed by congress and the court is limited to the portion that is in conflict with another law or the constitution. A regulation cannot repeal a law so if you are correct, then it is completely unenforceable in order to be "equal treatment" Was that your intent?
I know what you are doing. I kind of admire it, you are shocked that your side lost something, that something you hold dear turned out to not be true. You are upset because something pertaining to religion beat out whatever and you want to explain why it was wrong. But if your argument is so compelling, don't you think the government would have already used it? I mean they are lawyers who have some experience. Do you really think they are so inept that they did not think of this already and reject it or argue it and it failed?
Slashdot Mirror
Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?
I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.
I do not understand what is so hard for you to follow. Please explain where you are failing to grasp these simple concepts. A specific scenario was laid out and even though a bicycle was violating a law or rule, they would not be at fault if you hit them. You would be in that scenario.
Or with just the name of the ssid broadcast and a general geographic area.
You can use sites like wigle to search it out. If enough entries are put in, it prety much accurately trianglstes the location on the map. It has my old neiborhood down to withing a few feet of the apartments. A signal meter on a smart phone should get you to the front door.
I know of at least one reverse hacking incident (the hacker got hacked by its target while trying to penetrate a network) where the hacker was tracked down by reading the ssids availible on the wireless network and using a site like that to pinpoint a location.
I don't think this was ever about finding employees but enabling others to create content that people will seek so they can continue to make money from the data they collect and ads they sell.
It could also just be a way to feel better about themselves too.
I was purposely long winded in order to avoid the confusion but i guess sometimes people are slow to see the points. If you would have paid attention to the rest of the post, you wouldn't have posted that.
Someone violating a rule or law does not give you legal right to hit them. In the 5 abreast scenario, if to hit one of the bikes, you are at fault no matter how many rules they broke when you pass them in the lane they sre in.. If you are driving faster than you csn see and you stoppinng distance is beyond your line of sight, you are always at fault.
If someone blows a stop sign and you hit them, it can be your or their fault. If you had time to stop but didn't its your fault. If you do not have time to stop it is their fault.
If someone hits you when you are stopped, it is their fault. This is true almost sll the time whether bike or car or whatever its also a silly scenario to put out since the entire point of my post was about how you drive. In this scenario, the you is the other person. Suppose your car breaks in the middle of an intersection and you are stopped. No one has the right to hit your vehicle because you are blocking a travel lane.
If you are passing someone doing 5mph in the same lane and they hit you it is your fault. If you are in another lane and they enter your lane, it is their fault.
No state that i am aware of relieves you of your responsibility to operate safely just because someone else is violating a law. Well, outside of a DUI in wich case they seem to blame everything on the drunk driver regardless of who hit who.
No, google does not have too much influence. It just seems that way because few people had impactful influence before they started tossing money around. And the reason we are being flooded about it has more to do with the targets and a good PR department.
What we are seeing is largely to much PR. Influence in these areas seem to be lacking altogether else we wouldn't have these "look at us" stories all the time.
I might add that even if the law or code doesn't require that much space, it is a good idea to ensure there is enough room for the bike or even pedestrian to fall over and not be hit. I usually try for one and a third of their heighth so if they hit something and topple over, or just fall, i'm not held up with paperwork, repairs, or nightmares about a dead guy.
Do the math? What math, it's all the same. If the property has 1 mile road frontage or 10 feet, that 1 mile or road still needs all those services. If the property is valued at 10 dollars it still needs the same services as if the property is valued at 2 million dollars.
That's changing the goal post a bit isn't it? Taxes do not pay the insurance coverage. the city or whatever government entity does not provide the insurance. More expensive property will cost more to insure primarily because it will cost more to replace anything of higher value. But the police and fire are not used more then cheaper properties.
I'm not sure how you got that from my statement but there shouldn't be any subsidizing at all going on. First, a city is a city so no matter what area is in the city, the urban neighborhoods are not subsidizing the anything but the city. But the city should not be making profits either. If a city is subsidizing a county development, that shouldn't be happening outside the same mechanism the county funding has.
But the point of my comment is that one of the reason's the numbers favored the gulch community is because everything is jacked sky high in prices. If values were equal, the range would not be so different. In the article you linked to (which is about the study I linked to), none of the developments cost more to have than the revenue they brought in. So there was no subsidizing happening. The city was just collecting a bunch of profits and doing whatever with it.
First, I'm not a bike nazi or whatever they call those people who seem to always be in the way because their biking is better than a car so don't think I'm coming into this prejudiced.
It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely. That is drivers ed 101. It's annoying to slow down and pass someone who shouldn't be where they are. But the fault is yours if there is an accident like that.
If you cannot see past your headlights far enough needed to safely stop, you are driving too fast for conditions regardless of what the speed limit is. If there are hills you cannot see over, the same applies. You not being able to see something, or someone not in their lane is not an excuse to hit them. They can however come into your lane without leaving you proper time to react and it would be there fault. But the bottom line is, if they are in the lane you are driving in, it is no different then another car except you can pass them without completely changing lanes. If you hit them, it is the same as hitting another car. It doesn't matter if that other car or bike breaks 200 laws in the process of being in front of you, slowing, stopping, obstructing the flow of traffic is not a valid reason to hit them.
Have you ever went down a 4 lane city street with narrow lanes and saw a semi truck taking both lanes when they likely could squeeze into just one? The reason for that is because as long as they are in the lane (in this case two lanes) they have the right of way. If you try to squeeze by and there is an accident, it's your fault. If they try to squeeze by you and there is an accident, it's their fault. If they stay in one lane and wonder out of it which can easily happen if the road is bumpy, it's their fault. So by taking both lanes, they avoid being too close to the sidewalk, parked cars, telephone poles and whatever but also clear a right of way beside them. And yes, it is illegal for them to use two lanes instead of one.
Just think what would happen if a stationary object is in the middle of the road. What if a cinder block or something fell off a truck and you run up on it, it's all you and no one else unless someone comes back looking for it and is stupid enough to stop and ask if you saw it while broke down and sitting on top of it. It's all you if you swerve to miss it and hit another car.
Yes, epileptics can drive. It varies by state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I know an epileptic who had his license pulled after a single vehicle accident. He was able to get them back in about a years time but needed his doc to sign off on it. The doctor is the one who pulled his license too. The state didn't even cite him for the accident but his doctor filed the paper work, told him his license was no good and by the time he was released from the hospital, the revocation letter was sitting in the mail box. He ran up a telephone pole guide wire and flipped his car on it's roof then proceeded to bang his head and everything else not restrained by the seat belt off the steering wheel and whatever else was in the way while the seizure was happening- no damage to anything but the car and himself.
Just don't use your mom's basement or rent a recording studio that keeps logs on who was there and when, or else you will still get popped.
A generator, tarp for a back drop, and a semi- isolated spot in the middle of nowhere (like 800 miles away as you suggest) should be good. Leave your work cell phone and regular cell phone if you are a government employee somewhere else too. If work provides it, they might track it and for the government, they can accidentally search the NSA records and stumble onto you with as much crap they collect.
That is nonsense. Those things would still be there regardless of if it was 3 properties or one worth $1000 or $1,000,000 each.
People with more expensive property do not use the fire department more or the police more just because it is more expensive. People with larger lots and bigger homes do not either.
Assuming their math is correct, I would like to know what âoeproperty taxes, sales taxes, and other recurring revenues,â exactly is. The recurring revenues is what has me wondering. Are they thinking city income tax or what?
Either way, the problem with the article is that a city is not supposed to be making a profit off the people. They are not a business and any money they collect over the amount for the services rendered is waste. That is unless you subscribe to some theory that it's the Lord's money and you are just serfs or something (no, that is not a god reference). The government is not supposed to be taking more than they need.
Now I just read the study and it appears that the development they claim is most beneficial is sort of skewed in comparisons to the others. First, it has over 6 million square feet in retail and office space (commercial property) compared to the 67,000 and 39,000 square feet in the other two. Plus, there is a special property tax included called urban services district tax in addition to the general services tax in the so called profitable one,
But most strikingly, the cost of living is much higher in the so called profitable one. The average cost per square foot of residential space in the profitable one was $350/sq ft. All the others ranged between $89/sq ft and $113/sq ft. That's not how it should be- unless you are going to send all the poorer people offshore somewhere.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica....
And yes, it's a PFD.
No they do not have a right to full healthcare. They are required by law to purchase healthcare insurance. Insurance is not healthcare and there is no right to it. If you do not purchase the insurance, you will have to pay full price, with insurance, you will have to pay what the insurance doesn't cover and outside of a few specific things, that can vary a bit.
You only think that because you are wrong and something wrong stuck in your head. Even without this rulling, the same situation would be present as Obama's administration itself has already started exempting people from the birth control mandate before this case even went to court. As the majority opinion said, there is no claim that this would make it difficult for the government as they already created and implemented the alternative for churches and charities.. No one who argued this case or is in a position or power thinks the way you do on it.
I added nothing to the 14th. The 14th amendment does not in any way diminish any other amendments or parts of the constitution. What I did was reference parts of the constitution and was clear with it.
The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means the 14th cannot be utilized to deny or disparage any right protected by any other amendment. If the 14th meant to remove something from the constitution or it's amendment, it would have specifically referenced it's removal or specifically spelled out a new process. This is how all changes to the constitution has been done when they conflict with a previous provision. The 17th amendment, 20th amendment, 21st amendment (which directly appeals the 18th), 22nd amendment and 23rd amendment does this specifically.
lol.. you seem to be skipping the point and thinking you are getting somewhere on a technicality about something different. Who cares if felons cannot be stopped. I made a scenario in which if the courts said they could, or even if they are on a suspended sentence for good behavior, you would lose your 4th amendment protections via the 14th if your view were to prevail.
In Texas, there is often what is referred to as the "he needed killing" law. It's basically a right of self defense that has allowed a lot of people to kill others and not get charged or released from charges. Florida and their stand your ground law might be similar. So, if because someone in Florida or Texas is allowed to own big scary military style riffles and shoot people who pose a threat to them, does the 14th mean California's or New Jersey's restrictive laws are unconstitutional? I mean the right exists at a federal level in the 2nd amendment an in at least 2 or more other state's. According to your 14th amendment theory, any state who restricts a person's rights to keep arms and protect themselves would be unconstitutional according to your supposition.
But please, by all means, point to a court case in which your concept of the 14th prevailed. I'm sure that if you are correct, you can find one or more. I think your search for this will educate you quite well on how wrong you are. This would be more obvious if the government provided the insurance instead of forcing others to.
Lol . Someone explain how that is a troll.
It makes a lot of sense. For one, you don't need to store and then release the electricitt. For two, you don't need all the infrastructure upgrades for three, and probably the most important, this is somethingt the government can do without a major backlash from everyone who thinks global warming is nothing but a redistribution scheme designed to take right and wealth from the people while making government unneccesarily more powerful.
I don't think you understand. The 14th means laws are to be applied equally. So if a law violates another amendment, it doesn't mean that right or amendmet disapears, it means the law is unenforcable. If the 14th comes into play, it is unenforcable on everyone.
Your problem is that the 14th does not specifically invalidate any other provision so that provision has to remain valid. You cartainly would not insist on the same flawed logic if it was something you don'tagree with. Lets say a law that you can be stopped and searched any time the government wants. You object and win because you are a citizen but the courts allow it for felons and non citizens. You wouldn't make the claim that the 24th surpasses the fourth so the exception for citizens do not count due to the 14th surpassing the 4th.
Your argument is just a silly one with no merit. The 14th did not repeal any other amendment so if it comes into play, then the entire regulation is unenforcable. The 9th amandment makes that clear.
Because you will have to maintain them and replace them eventually. Those figures are already included in an electric bill. And if it is a business, depreciation also leads to tax advantages.
Not in any amount that would be additionsl savings.
The question is if they are actually saving or being paid to do those things. Its a valid question because it shows whether the tech is market mature or not. If it is all subsidies, it is just a cost burden to most all that do not have the luxury of taking advantage of the subsidies. But if it is market competitive, then it should fuel a trend worth joining.
I probably have deserved to be lumped in there a time or two. The cops were called because of noise complaints and i was putting liquor into the trunk because we were moving the party.
Anyways, the part thay shocked me wasn't getting slammed into the wall. The cops around here have john wayne syndrome with a touch of stupidity (seriously, showed up to a complaint about a woman threatening to kill hersel with a kitchen knife and they shot her dead with 7 shots- because she had a kitchen knife) so little surprises me with them. It was the cop's explaination of the events. I would think if he was justified, he would have just said i was beligerant and resisting arrest. But they concocted a story to make themselves look innocent.
People who hear the word mayday and politics will think communist Russia- that is if they know anything about the cold war.
Willfully ignorant, I will give you. Stupid I cannot. It is a legitimate thought process to anyone who who lived through the cold war. It drives half the country's knee jerk hatred against socialism today.
they arrest him, know who he is and that he is not a threat, realise the charges are more or less for being annoying in public, put him in the holding while processing the paperwork. He asks to make a phone call, they hand him his cell phone, he makes the post while being bored.
They likely never would have allowed it. Knowing cops, they probably didn't know they were allowing it either.
That is, I have no idea how true this would be. It's just a possible scenario to how they could have allowed it without knowing they allowed it. The part that has me is, if it was posted as him, they would have had to get his user name and password else it would have showed as someone else posting it. That's possible with the crap they have to suck info from phones, but it makes the story a little more hard to digest. Of course they could have made him log in and post it. But then Facebook would have an IP set for the police department if you could ever get to the logs.
This probably happens in real life. I got slammed against a brick wall when I was 23 or so by a cop for asking him what he just said to me as I was putting some things into the trunk of a car. I filed a complaint and he wrote in his statement that he put his hands up to signal me to stop approaching and I stumbled into them and fell back against the wall a few times.
It didn't matter that it was right after a bachelor party and there were about 4 video cameras that captured it all and the cop was obviously lying (long before cell phones had cameras in them). I was charged with obstructing justice, assaulting a police officer, disturbing the peace, in control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and destruction of public property (he siad he tore his shirt slamming me into the wall). Luckily, he was going through a bitter divorce and my lawyer knew it. He said loudly, "we talked with his wife, she said he is a habitual liar and talks a lot about the people he screws over by claiming shit that never happened and is willing to testify for us". This was in the hall waiting for the pretrial conference to start. About 20 minutes later, the prosecutor came out and offered a deal with pleading to disorderly conduct and everything else dropped. My lawyer took it.
I'm not drawing you a picture. If they are so similar that you just had to spend a second entire post describing the differences, my point still stands- people will confuse the one with the other and ignore it until it gets going and then without looking into it, fight against it.
Why do I know this? Because it happens all the time. It's like when John Stewart explained that a SOFA agreement being talked about with Iraq was an agreement on how long you can crash on somebody's couch before having to pay rent. the joke only worked because it was similar but different and you knew there would be a couple of people going "right on brother" until he explained the rest of the story.
The average full time non salary worker at hobby lobby makes $14 an hour. I wouldn't exactly call that not much. But you not wanting to sacrifice something to pay for a health service does not mean someone who refuses to pay for it is telling you what health care services you can have.
I need a cite before I will believe this. Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 methods covered by the Obama care mandate and only went to court on 4 of them. As far as anyone has said, they will still provide coverage for those 16 contraception devices.
Not relevant but show me a creditable link and it needs to be one concerning the 4 contraception they took issue with.
Not relevant again. Or do you think you should go to prison for something your father or brother did? They don't seem to be telling others how to live, just objecting to others telling them to ignore their faith and provide a couple specific things.
No one is arguing to mess around with other people's lives except for the government. They are saying you have to provide X even if it is against your religion and hobby lobby said no I don't and a court agreed with them. That is the facts that it boils down to if you remove all the spin.
You wouldn't be double paying for it. You simply wouldn't be compensated for it the first time. You see, any benefit has to be payed before it can be counted as compensation. In this case, hobby lobby is paying everything it needs to except for the 4 contraception ways. Therefore, your compensation would be base pay plus benefits that do not include abortion coverage.
But I would watch all this compensation arguments before the IRS gets the idea that it is taxable income. You could make that argument so well that next thing you know, you will be paying taxes on your medical benefits.
lol.. you are funny. So if SCOTUS tied this up, then your first two premises are false. IF they are not false, then your third premise is. But none the less, I think you already knew and allowed for that.
Well, here is the problem. So what if they can do that? IT doesn't prevent those people subjected to the loss of transfusions or psychiatric medication from gaining coverage in some other way. Obama already made the insurance companies cover without cost to the charity, the contraception portions of the HHS mandate for charities of religious nature who object. So even though the religious charities do not pay for it, even though the policy they provide does not list it, the fact that someone there has insurance also gives them the option to get a separate free policy covering all of the HHS mandate that the charity o
lol.. Equal protection under the law not treatment. The contraception mandate is not law but a regulation. But that is neither here nor there, the mandate addresses the employer and the ruling addresses only certain employers. If however, the regulation had to be treated equally across everything, then it would have to be completely unenforceable across everything. You see, if a rule or law violates another rule, law, or constitutional provision, then it must be resolved. In this case, it was a law passed in 1993 by democrats and that law held supreme. The equal protection provision says nothing about the first amendment or that any law in conflict has to be resolved any specific way so if it happens to be in violation somehow, then it all has to go if you do a strict reading like that. Only congress or a court can repeal a law passed by congress and the court is limited to the portion that is in conflict with another law or the constitution. A regulation cannot repeal a law so if you are correct, then it is completely unenforceable in order to be "equal treatment" Was that your intent?
I know what you are doing. I kind of admire it, you are shocked that your side lost something, that something you hold dear turned out to not be true. You are upset because something pertaining to religion beat out whatever and you want to explain why it was wrong. But if your argument is so compelling, don't you think the government would have already used it? I mean they are lawyers who have some experience. Do you really think they are so inept that they did not think of this already and reject it or argue it and it failed?