Actually, he attempted to stop people from imposing their moral views on him. The morals were already engrained by law. The people trying to change the law are the one who took the action of imposing.
It certainly is a politcal issue/view. Marriage is sanctioned by the state and as such, it is political by default. It is just as political as the age of consent, poligamy, incest, and any other restriction there is on marriage. In fact, it is a lot like the politics of incest when you tgink about it. The big stick seems to be wanting the state to recognize the marriage so they have the tax and other benifits. Is sally could marry herr dad on his death bed, she woyld escape a crapton of taxes and have other benifits when he dies and sher inherits everything.
Nothing this guy did was intolorant either he gave money to a political group trying to keep the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years (hundreds in the US). You have absolutely no evidence he has ever treated anyone badly and the politics don't count. The politics was to keep the status quo.
That doesn't show he treated anyone differently. It only shows he gave money to a cause.
In order for anyone to treat anyone or any thing, they have tl do something specific to them/it. He has done nothing to anyone in his capacity of employmeny differently
I'm told the name of that is called hollywood accounting.
There is the chance that profits were burried somewhere but i think the numbers came from their SEC filings which doesn't allow too many shenanigans else they get hit with the regulatory bat and sent to pita prison. Of course like with worldcom and tyco, they have to be caught first.
Third parties will never make it nationallly until they start taking it locally. If the dems and reps didn't hold almost all the state and local seats, you would see more third parties both in the news and federal government.
Years sgo when Exxon was posting billion dollar quarterly profits and gas was around $5.00 a gallon, we did some math and determined that along the entire supply chain, they were making about 25 cents per gallon total over the costs of crude. Of course they operate on 5 different continents so the massive profits were due to volume more than anything.
Anyways, the CEO of both exxon and bp oil were talking about delivering alternative energy when it became viable. I think the BP oil CEO said something along the lines of there being more money to be made in alternative energy like compressed natural gas. It was a while ago so i may be off a bit on which said what.
I think the only thing they fear about energy other than oil is not being involved in it for profits sake.
I see you believe what you say so much you had yo post it AC.
I said few not none. I'm sure there would be die hard idiots out there. The difference would be that people like me who are paying attention would be on your side. Right now its like the concerned citizen who tries to stop a hostage situation by shooting the hostages as well as their captors. Definatrly not someone you would call a hero
You are a disengenuous liar. You lose all moral ground when you ignore the traiteroys part in order to make you case.
If he had combed through it all and inly released the illegal stuff, it wouldn't matter whst i bitched about. I wouldn't have an argument. But he didn't and we are here listening to people cry yet again brcause someone else says what ge did was both courageous and inexcusable. You fail
I don't need an excuse. There were disclosures about shit that violated no law. But i see you are ignoring that in order to maintain your point so i guess we are done here. Good luck in fantasy land.
Unless you are somehow under the illusion that everything the government does is criminal, you are again ignoring the truth of the facts in order to maintain your posistion.
Of course either way, it makes the rest of what you wrote negated. You still fail the sanity test.
Minimum wage jobs traditionally were never meant to be careers. They were stepping stones for inexperienced workers and people looking to supliment their income. Subsidizing wages with welfare gave way to the opertunity to pay the minimum wage when globalization kicked in and employees started having to compete with labor in third wofld countries.
Yet the answer always seems to be throw more money at it with increased welfare benefits or costing the employer more money in some way so it will always be a circular problrm until something is figured out in how to address the root causes. Automation seems to start but i do not think it will be a cure.
Snowden released a lot more information than the domestic spying. Your statement would only be remotely true if you constructivly ignore that.
For the sane among us, we acknowlege reality and consume all the facts. Snowden is a traitor even if you excuse his released about the domestic spying because you cannot ignore the released completely unrelated to it.
carter did not create FISA to allow the surveilance state to expand. Before FISA, there was no limitations on foreign intrligence gathering. Even if it involved a citizen. FISA actually put limits in. Carter did however expand FISA via executive order though.
It basically claims the alternative to violating a law was so much worse that you had no choice. It is often used like when your kid cuts his hand off while helping chop wood and you spef him yo the hospital- it wad a neccesity. Another example might be a prisoner escapes claiming condition inside prison would have cost him his life. Sometimes it doesn't work even when the reason is convincing.
So yes, good i tentions somrtimes alloow the law to be ignored.
Not at all. The vast majority of jews did absolutely nothing outside of living in a certain area. Even non practicing jews were rounded up so religion isn't even part of it.
I'm sure if snowden had stopped short of releasing documents that had nothing to do with the domestic spying, a lot more people would be requesting his exonoration.
Bit he released way more then that and we have what we have.
If he would have limited his releases to just the domestic spying and the illegal/unconstitution stuff, few people would be calling him a traitor or saying he should be prosecuted. However, he didn't so here we are with even an ex pres saying it was good but he should be arrested and prosecuted.
I agree with separating employment and healthcare but i think you are a loon if you think this is about employers telling employees what to do with their lives. I'm sure a lot of them would be more than happy to ignore you healthcare altogether.
This is about who pays for what- nothing else. It's not about you using it.
This has nothing to do with taxes. If it did, the government could just say all your taxes went to building roads- not to war and aborgions.
This is about having to seek out insurance coverage that specifically provides it for your employees else be in violation of the law and have to pay penalties plus risk all the other problems businesses end up with when they constantly violate the law.
At least through taxes you can pretend your tax dollars went to the schools or roads or something other than executing someone. With this, you specifically have to seek out a policy that covers it and provide it to your employees.
The argument on the contraception is not that you cannot use it, its that i shouldn't have to participate in your using of it by paying for it for you.
Now before you say it isn't me paying for it, it is the insurance company, it is me- the employer being forced to give you access to that insurance company. The insurance i am forced to provide specifically provides contraception/abortion coverage because of law. As for this pool of money, collect it without me having to pay for access to certain contraceptions or abortions and i won't care.
Of course this is just as easily resolved by having the employees purchase separate coverage if they want access to it. Then i am completely out of it.
Well, despite there being a long history of morons and hypocrites working for the government, i wasn't saying that at all. I basically said someone made a statement about something above their pay grade and you should not take it as an official policy statement.
As for idiots or morons running the country, just like any other country, we have quite a few of them in the civilian population too. So the answer will be the same as last year or 50 years ago. NOTHING.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he attempted to stop people from imposing their moral views on him. The morals were already engrained by law. The people trying to change the law are the one who took the action of imposing.
It certainly is a politcal issue/view. Marriage is sanctioned by the state and as such, it is political by default. It is just as political as the age of consent, poligamy, incest, and any other restriction there is on marriage. In fact, it is a lot like the politics of incest when you tgink about it. The big stick seems to be wanting the state to recognize the marriage so they have the tax and other benifits. Is sally could marry herr dad on his death bed, she woyld escape a crapton of taxes and have other benifits when he dies and sher inherits everything.
Nothing this guy did was intolorant either he gave money to a political group trying to keep the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years (hundreds in the US). You have absolutely no evidence he has ever treated anyone badly and the politics don't count. The politics was to keep the status quo.
I don't think it matters anyways. I guess your politics and religion detrrmine if you csn be employed and where.
My how far we have come from whites only establishments. I'm not blaming you or anything. Just thinking out loud and your post sparked it.
That doesn't show he treated anyone differently. It only shows he gave money to a cause.
In order for anyone to treat anyone or any thing, they have tl do something specific to them/it. He has done nothing to anyone in his capacity of employmeny differently
I'm told the name of that is called hollywood accounting.
There is the chance that profits were burried somewhere but i think the numbers came from their SEC filings which doesn't allow too many shenanigans else they get hit with the regulatory bat and sent to pita prison. Of course like with worldcom and tyco, they have to be caught first.
Third parties will never make it nationallly until they start taking it locally. If the dems and reps didn't hold almost all the state and local seats, you would see more third parties both in the news and federal government.
Years sgo when Exxon was posting billion dollar quarterly profits and gas was around $5.00 a gallon, we did some math and determined that along the entire supply chain, they were making about 25 cents per gallon total over the costs of crude. Of course they operate on 5 different continents so the massive profits were due to volume more than anything.
Anyways, the CEO of both exxon and bp oil were talking about delivering alternative energy when it became viable. I think the BP oil CEO said something along the lines of there being more money to be made in alternative energy like compressed natural gas. It was a while ago so i may be off a bit on which said what.
I think the only thing they fear about energy other than oil is not being involved in it for profits sake.
Still playing stupid or are you outtigjy trolling now?
I see you believe what you say so much you had yo post it AC.
I said few not none. I'm sure there would be die hard idiots out there. The difference would be that people like me who are paying attention would be on your side. Right now its like the concerned citizen who tries to stop a hostage situation by shooting the hostages as well as their captors. Definatrly not someone you would call a hero
You are a disengenuous liar. You lose all moral ground when you ignore the traiteroys part in order to make you case.
If he had combed through it all and inly released the illegal stuff, it wouldn't matter whst i bitched about. I wouldn't have an argument. But he didn't and we are here listening to people cry yet again brcause someone else says what ge did was both courageous and inexcusable. You fail
I don't need an excuse. There were disclosures about shit that violated no law. But i see you are ignoring that in order to maintain your point so i guess we are done here. Good luck in fantasy land.
Unless you are somehow under the illusion that everything the government does is criminal, you are again ignoring the truth of the facts in order to maintain your posistion.
Of course either way, it makes the rest of what you wrote negated. You still fail the sanity test.
Minimum wage jobs traditionally were never meant to be careers. They were stepping stones for inexperienced workers and people looking to supliment their income. Subsidizing wages with welfare gave way to the opertunity to pay the minimum wage when globalization kicked in and employees started having to compete with labor in third wofld countries.
Yet the answer always seems to be throw more money at it with increased welfare benefits or costing the employer more money in some way so it will always be a circular problrm until something is figured out in how to address the root causes. Automation seems to start but i do not think it will be a cure.
Snowden released a lot more information than the domestic spying. Your statement would only be remotely true if you constructivly ignore that.
For the sane among us, we acknowlege reality and consume all the facts. Snowden is a traitor even if you excuse his released about the domestic spying because you cannot ignore the released completely unrelated to it.
Ok- first, I'm not a fan of carter.
carter did not create FISA to allow the surveilance state to expand. Before FISA, there was no limitations on foreign intrligence gathering. Even if it involved a citizen. FISA actually put limits in. Carter did however expand FISA via executive order though.
There is a defe se called neccesity.
It basically claims the alternative to violating a law was so much worse that you had no choice. It is often used like when your kid cuts his hand off while helping chop wood and you spef him yo the hospital- it wad a neccesity. Another example might be a prisoner escapes claiming condition inside prison would have cost him his life. Sometimes it doesn't work even when the reason is convincing.
So yes, good i tentions somrtimes alloow the law to be ignored.
Not at all. The vast majority of jews did absolutely nothing outside of living in a certain area. Even non practicing jews were rounded up so religion isn't even part of it.
I'm sure if snowden had stopped short of releasing documents that had nothing to do with the domestic spying, a lot more people would be requesting his exonoration.
Bit he released way more then that and we have what we have.
If he would have limited his releases to just the domestic spying and the illegal/unconstitution stuff, few people would be calling him a traitor or saying he should be prosecuted. However, he didn't so here we are with even an ex pres saying it was good but he should be arrested and prosecuted.
I agree with separating employment and healthcare but i think you are a loon if you think this is about employers telling employees what to do with their lives. I'm sure a lot of them would be more than happy to ignore you healthcare altogether.
This is about who pays for what- nothing else. It's not about you using it.
This has nothing to do with taxes. If it did, the government could just say all your taxes went to building roads- not to war and aborgions.
This is about having to seek out insurance coverage that specifically provides it for your employees else be in violation of the law and have to pay penalties plus risk all the other problems businesses end up with when they constantly violate the law.
Carter openly admits to starting supplying the mujuhadeem with arms and training to fight russia.
In fact, he just did it in the same interview this nsa tidbit is comming from.
At least through taxes you can pretend your tax dollars went to the schools or roads or something other than executing someone. With this, you specifically have to seek out a policy that covers it and provide it to your employees.
Not quite the same.
The argument on the contraception is not that you cannot use it, its that i shouldn't have to participate in your using of it by paying for it for you.
Now before you say it isn't me paying for it, it is the insurance company, it is me- the employer being forced to give you access to that insurance company. The insurance i am forced to provide specifically provides contraception/abortion coverage because of law. As for this pool of money, collect it without me having to pay for access to certain contraceptions or abortions and i won't care.
Of course this is just as easily resolved by having the employees purchase separate coverage if they want access to it. Then i am completely out of it.
Well, despite there being a long history of morons and hypocrites working for the government, i wasn't saying that at all. I basically said someone made a statement about something above their pay grade and you should not take it as an official policy statement.
As for idiots or morons running the country, just like any other country, we have quite a few of them in the civilian population too. So the answer will be the same as last year or 50 years ago. NOTHING.