Yes, that is 100% correct. I saw a political group talking about political measures and my mind immediately went to a political holiday in communist countries due to the same name being used.
Its the employer's money and they determine compensation.
The employee can still spend it how they see fit. They just have to wait until it actually is given to them instead of expecting the employer to purchase it for you.
Lol.. evidently you missed the highest court in the land saying you are wrong.
The employer has the right to decide how their money is spent. If your sex life is none of ypur employers business, then stop asking them to pay for it. But even then, it is a wild stretch to claim the employer is forcing their opinion on you because of this. You can still get and use birth control, you canstill get abortions, you can still find insurance to pay for it. The only thing happening is the employer is now not forced to pay for it.
What does federal government have to do with it? The majority of corporations are incorporated under state law. And each statr has slightly different laws on it.
So let me ask you a few questions. Is it ok for any government entity - state local or fedrral- to say if you get a fishing license, you can olny donate to republicans or you lose your polifical speech? Is it ok for the government to demand you surrender 4th amandment rights in order to become a licensed driver? Is it fine for the government to demand you join a catholic church in order to get married? Hpw about you can only donate to the democrats if you get a building permit?
I would hope all your answers are no, it is not ok. So why then would it be valid for anyone wanting to get another government permit -eg incorporating.
Sigh.. So even if we do stretch this to mars and back and say health insurance (not health care- they is a big difference) is pay earned by the employee and not something provided by or pay by the company, when does a company stop being in charge of what compensation it pays employees?
And contrary to the previous poster's statement which you seem to think is correct, this is not about anyone telling you what health care services you can have. It is about the government forcing someone to violate their faith. You can still have all the abortions you want, you can still have all the birth control you want. You just cannot make someone violate their faith and give it to you.
It seems your problems with religion has clouded your thought process to the point you cannot see logic. Maybe it is time to step back and take a deep breath.
I don't find it odd at all. The difference is that a panel of doctors at an insurance provider or government rationing comity is dictating what already paid for benefits will be honored where a panel of non-doctors at a corporation is dictating what they are willing to pay for coverage. You can still get the coverage elsewhere in the later, but you assumed you already had the coverage in the previous.
And employer does and should have the right to determine what benefits and pay it offers it's employees. This has nothing to do with what you can and cannot do. It's about what the employer has to do and violating their religious teachings in the process doesn't seem to be one of them. They cannot withhold your pay, they can however determine if you make minimum wage, $20 and hour or 60k a year salary. What you do with it is of no concern to them unless it prevents you from working- then they will fire you and pay someone else.
The employees are more than capable under this ruling of getting birth control and having abortions outside of the company. They can even purchase a policy separate from the company to cover it. Dry your tears so you can see straight.
How does, I don't have to spend my money on something I don't agree with translate to not doing business I offer everyone else with someone? There is a huge difference. It's like saying a soup kitchen is the same thing as a meat processing plant. They aren't.
Your philosophy is just as valid as my philosophy... or at least it was. Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.
Wrong.. One philosophy is not paramount in the eyes of the law. The right to hold that philosophy or religious belief and not have the government intrude or erode it is.
This has nothing to do with science or philosophy, this has to do with your rights to be free of government intrusion into your religion (which may hold philosophical views).
People often say if it walks like duck, sounds like a duck, it might be a rabbit. Seriously, even if they spelled it Maeday, it would still stoke the similarities and memories. They would have been better off calling it the SOS PAC or something.
Here is another.. what is the difference between a lesbos and lesbian? One is an island and the other is the people from that island. Yeah, even if you didn't, most people thought something else first.
They cannot be deprived of wealth of liberty or freedom by law. They can be dissolved- corporate status can be removed, but not deprived of wealth without just compensation as the constitution says and not deprived or liberty or freedom without due process unless everyone one is because everyone enjoys equal protection under the law.
You are assuming that corporations have no constitutional rights. You are wrong as the supreme court already pointed out. Now, it is true that corporations can be regulated in ways people cannot but that is only because they stretched the interstate commerce clause to include everything but the kitchen sink. Most all corporations are incorporated under a state statute which means that the feds cannot really do much to their corporation status either without stretching the constitution.
So you remove corporate status somehow, they are still an association and can still function like a corporation and still enjoy political speech rights just like the court said. All a corporation does is allow the owners of a company to separate themselves from actions of the company they did not participate in and set a standard for a board to government the company in the interests of the company. There is nothing magical about a corporation other than people can own it who may not even know what it does. A corporation gives a company a level of autonomy and little more.
Unless you discount those voters who would already agree with the Koch brothers and not participate. that's likely 45% or better considering the divide in the country.
Plus, May Day is the wrong name for this. It reminds me of the communist celebration marking the start of first red scare in the US with the bloody Chicago strikes in which most communist countries parade around and celebrate. It took me a long while to figure out these guys weren't reliving the glory days of the Soviet Union. Not too many other people with half a clue would give them that much time or effort before dismissing them as some fringe communist platform worthy of being ignored until it appears they are doing something significant then actively fighting again.
These aren't stupid people so I'm wondering why they picked a name that could be (mis)interpreted like that.
Lol.. And as long as the corporations are not dissolved, they have the same or similar liberty as individuals do for the most part.
And yes, you would have to dissolve all corporations because that is what the court already said, you cannot strip the right of political speech from a corporation, association, or labor union. They also said over 25 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money is political speech.
So as long as corporations exist, you either have to change the first amendment to have a constitutional exception or get rid of corporations. I don't think it would be possible to get rid of associations or labor unions so we are back to the constitution.
You are correct, it wouldn't be the fault of CCSS. But what do you suggest everyone rail about when it is being presented to them as common core and if unchallenged will be what common core is in their states. I mean railing about potatoes or dogs or salad doesn't seem to address the issues with what is presented to them as common core.
Stop being an idiot. The blockade on Cuba ended in the 1960s and yhe embargo only effect US companies, their forrign subsidiaries, and imports from Cuba to the US. Cuba has been a member of the WTO since 1995.
Most of south america, central america, Russia, china, Europe, and Canada does business with Cuba. The only thing the US embargo hurts is US businesses and to a lesser extent US farmers who could ship more product cheaper to cuba than other places in the world. We do already ship food to cuba.
Thats a crock of crap. The only countries in the embargo is the US. Even Canada and Mexico do not participate.
The only thing if anything denying Cuba food and medicine is either corruption in Cuba or Cuba's government. The US is not the only place Cuba can get food or medicine- cold war or not.
Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri
on
That Toy Is Now a Drone
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Of course they have the power to regulate quadcopeters. And they already do. They are regulated as recreational.
Not really. The problem with federal government regulation is that they do not by default have jurisdiction unless it somehow it granted to them by the constitution. Hence the reason there is a recreational exemption to regulation- it doesn't influence interstate commerce or whatever other stretch of power they use in order to devise regulatory authority. The federal government is not like a traditional government that can just pass laws. It's original jurisdiction is outlined in the constitution and some court cases have expanded those to seem like it is all encompassing.
This is even true for things like tractor trailer operations too. There are recreational exceptions to even that which do not require keeping a log book, having a DOT or MCC number or anything of the sort. There is even an exemption for a CDL requirement if it is what they consider recreational/hobby.
If the exemption was not there, the regulation ability would not survive a court challenge by people clearly outside the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction.
One of the problems with common core is that it is not just the so called core. When states adopt it, they also adopt new history and other standards in the process to. So arguing that it is not in the core when it is in what a state may be pushing under the concept of the core is a lot misleading. But on the same note, sneaking outside agendas into something that should be straight forward like common core is misleading also.
So the problem is that things are not as they seem which means things cannot be as they are supposed to be.
I'm seriously interested in seeing these comments and the context they were made in. Most of the Tea Party are not in positions to wreck the economy outside of not buying a particular item to something.
Perhaps its not about opt in or out. Perhaps MS patched something the NSA was exploiting and they were told to knock it off.
Of course I'm just guessing. I have no idea what the so called changes are but I can assume it was something that exposed MS to possible financial penalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is 100% correct. I saw a political group talking about political measures and my mind immediately went to a political holiday in communist countries due to the same name being used.
How is that partisan?.
Its the employer's money and they determine compensation.
The employee can still spend it how they see fit. They just have to wait until it actually is given to them instead of expecting the employer to purchase it for you.
Lol.. evidently you missed the highest court in the land saying you are wrong.
The employer has the right to decide how their money is spent. If your sex life is none of ypur employers business, then stop asking them to pay for it. But even then, it is a wild stretch to claim the employer is forcing their opinion on you because of this. You can still get and use birth control, you canstill get abortions, you can still find insurance to pay for it. The only thing happening is the employer is now not forced to pay for it.
What does federal government have to do with it? The majority of corporations are incorporated under state law. And each statr has slightly different laws on it.
So let me ask you a few questions. Is it ok for any government entity - state local or fedrral- to say if you get a fishing license, you can olny donate to republicans or you lose your polifical speech? Is it ok for the government to demand you surrender 4th amandment rights in order to become a licensed driver? Is it fine for the government to demand you join a catholic church in order to get married? Hpw about you can only donate to the democrats if you get a building permit?
I would hope all your answers are no, it is not ok. So why then would it be valid for anyone wanting to get another government permit -eg incorporating.
Sigh.. So even if we do stretch this to mars and back and say health insurance (not health care- they is a big difference) is pay earned by the employee and not something provided by or pay by the company, when does a company stop being in charge of what compensation it pays employees?
And contrary to the previous poster's statement which you seem to think is correct, this is not about anyone telling you what health care services you can have. It is about the government forcing someone to violate their faith. You can still have all the abortions you want, you can still have all the birth control you want. You just cannot make someone violate their faith and give it to you.
It seems your problems with religion has clouded your thought process to the point you cannot see logic. Maybe it is time to step back and take a deep breath.
I don't find it odd at all. The difference is that a panel of doctors at an insurance provider or government rationing comity is dictating what already paid for benefits will be honored where a panel of non-doctors at a corporation is dictating what they are willing to pay for coverage. You can still get the coverage elsewhere in the later, but you assumed you already had the coverage in the previous.
And employer does and should have the right to determine what benefits and pay it offers it's employees. This has nothing to do with what you can and cannot do. It's about what the employer has to do and violating their religious teachings in the process doesn't seem to be one of them. They cannot withhold your pay, they can however determine if you make minimum wage, $20 and hour or 60k a year salary. What you do with it is of no concern to them unless it prevents you from working- then they will fire you and pay someone else.
The employees are more than capable under this ruling of getting birth control and having abortions outside of the company. They can even purchase a policy separate from the company to cover it. Dry your tears so you can see straight.
Not at all.
How does, I don't have to spend my money on something I don't agree with translate to not doing business I offer everyone else with someone? There is a huge difference. It's like saying a soup kitchen is the same thing as a meat processing plant. They aren't.
Wrong.. One philosophy is not paramount in the eyes of the law. The right to hold that philosophy or religious belief and not have the government intrude or erode it is.
This has nothing to do with science or philosophy, this has to do with your rights to be free of government intrusion into your religion (which may hold philosophical views).
Yup, you refuse to stop being an idiot. Like I originally asked for, So what company/country does business with cuba that the US has punished.
You have an answer for everything but nothing to back it up.
Can't you just change your browser's user agent string to identify as a MS desktop IE version?
Or does it require some plug in or something?
Potato patahto. Tomato Tomahto.
People often say if it walks like duck, sounds like a duck, it might be a rabbit. Seriously, even if they spelled it Maeday, it would still stoke the similarities and memories. They would have been better off calling it the SOS PAC or something.
Here is another.. what is the difference between a lesbos and lesbian? One is an island and the other is the people from that island. Yeah, even if you didn't, most people thought something else first.
They cannot be deprived of wealth of liberty or freedom by law. They can be dissolved- corporate status can be removed, but not deprived of wealth without just compensation as the constitution says and not deprived or liberty or freedom without due process unless everyone one is because everyone enjoys equal protection under the law.
You are assuming that corporations have no constitutional rights. You are wrong as the supreme court already pointed out. Now, it is true that corporations can be regulated in ways people cannot but that is only because they stretched the interstate commerce clause to include everything but the kitchen sink. Most all corporations are incorporated under a state statute which means that the feds cannot really do much to their corporation status either without stretching the constitution.
So you remove corporate status somehow, they are still an association and can still function like a corporation and still enjoy political speech rights just like the court said. All a corporation does is allow the owners of a company to separate themselves from actions of the company they did not participate in and set a standard for a board to government the company in the interests of the company. There is nothing magical about a corporation other than people can own it who may not even know what it does. A corporation gives a company a level of autonomy and little more.
Unless you discount those voters who would already agree with the Koch brothers and not participate. that's likely 45% or better considering the divide in the country.
Plus, May Day is the wrong name for this. It reminds me of the communist celebration marking the start of first red scare in the US with the bloody Chicago strikes in which most communist countries parade around and celebrate. It took me a long while to figure out these guys weren't reliving the glory days of the Soviet Union. Not too many other people with half a clue would give them that much time or effort before dismissing them as some fringe communist platform worthy of being ignored until it appears they are doing something significant then actively fighting again.
These aren't stupid people so I'm wondering why they picked a name that could be (mis)interpreted like that.
Dude, when has it ever been used?
Can be is not is and not does.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/3725654....
http://www.thecanadianencyclop...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.tradecommissioner.g...
The problem if any exists in Cuba lacking anything regarding trade is in their own corruption and government.
You do not know what you are talking about. A simple google search found those in the first two pages.
Lol.. And as long as the corporations are not dissolved, they have the same or similar liberty as individuals do for the most part.
And yes, you would have to dissolve all corporations because that is what the court already said, you cannot strip the right of political speech from a corporation, association, or labor union. They also said over 25 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money is political speech.
So as long as corporations exist, you either have to change the first amendment to have a constitutional exception or get rid of corporations. I don't think it would be possible to get rid of associations or labor unions so we are back to the constitution.
You are correct, it wouldn't be the fault of CCSS. But what do you suggest everyone rail about when it is being presented to them as common core and if unchallenged will be what common core is in their states. I mean railing about potatoes or dogs or salad doesn't seem to address the issues with what is presented to them as common core.
There has been absolutely no incidents i can find to suggest that would be true. Furthermore, it would be against WTO rules if it were to happen.
So what company/country does business with cuba that the US has punished. And might i remind you that Canada and Mexico do business with Cuba.
There simply is no truth to what you say.
Stop being an idiot. The blockade on Cuba ended in the 1960s and yhe embargo only effect US companies, their forrign subsidiaries, and imports from Cuba to the US. Cuba has been a member of the WTO since 1995.
Most of south america, central america, Russia, china, Europe, and Canada does business with Cuba. The only thing the US embargo hurts is US businesses and to a lesser extent US farmers who could ship more product cheaper to cuba than other places in the world. We do already ship food to cuba.
Thats a crock of crap. The only countries in the embargo is the US. Even Canada and Mexico do not participate.
The only thing if anything denying Cuba food and medicine is either corruption in Cuba or Cuba's government. The US is not the only place Cuba can get food or medicine- cold war or not.
Not really. The problem with federal government regulation is that they do not by default have jurisdiction unless it somehow it granted to them by the constitution. Hence the reason there is a recreational exemption to regulation- it doesn't influence interstate commerce or whatever other stretch of power they use in order to devise regulatory authority. The federal government is not like a traditional government that can just pass laws. It's original jurisdiction is outlined in the constitution and some court cases have expanded those to seem like it is all encompassing.
This is even true for things like tractor trailer operations too. There are recreational exceptions to even that which do not require keeping a log book, having a DOT or MCC number or anything of the sort. There is even an exemption for a CDL requirement if it is what they consider recreational/hobby.
If the exemption was not there, the regulation ability would not survive a court challenge by people clearly outside the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction.
Mine has a flash. I generally have my finger over it though.
You don't need a cheap phone. You do need to know how to take a picture with it though.
One of the problems with common core is that it is not just the so called core. When states adopt it, they also adopt new history and other standards in the process to. So arguing that it is not in the core when it is in what a state may be pushing under the concept of the core is a lot misleading. But on the same note, sneaking outside agendas into something that should be straight forward like common core is misleading also.
So the problem is that things are not as they seem which means things cannot be as they are supposed to be.
Got any cites for that from a non biased source?
I'm seriously interested in seeing these comments and the context they were made in. Most of the Tea Party are not in positions to wreck the economy outside of not buying a particular item to something.
Perhaps its not about opt in or out. Perhaps MS patched something the NSA was exploiting and they were told to knock it off.
Of course I'm just guessing. I have no idea what the so called changes are but I can assume it was something that exposed MS to possible financial penalties.