I yhink you missed the part where he and the law said that act had to be interpreted to have either killed or caused damage or the risk of the act could cause the same.
Its not a stretch or rediculous at all if you consider the entirety of it. You see, a news paper printing the government should do X- is an act to influence government. In order to fall under this law, the news paper would have to say something like kill all of them until X happens or maybe burn the gov building down if X doesn't become law.
You see, the important parts are the damage and death. It doesn't even have to happen, just be reasonably possible for it to happen. But i'm not sure i like the idea of possible being largely up to the officer's discretion. Perhaps that is why there is a court review process. So you don't get constantly harrassed until you give up like pussy riot.
By definition prisoners are removed from society because of a conviction of breaking the law. It doesn't make much sence to say you are removed from society but you can still participate in it. Whenthey are removed (imprisioned), they are removed. Or do you think prisoners should be able to start work from home businesses in their cell too? Imprisoning someone is removing them from society.
Up to infers best effot though. Otherwise the language would need to be excep when. So i guess the question is "does "up to" encompass when they are purposely and specifically intentful in limiting to less". I say no because there is no chance of up to if they refuse to allow the speed wich is completely different than something outside their control causing the limitations.
Look at it this way. If i made and sold a car, and in the process i said it would do 70mph am i being fraudulent when i install a mechanical governer to limit it to 60mph and the only way you can see 70 is by coasting in neutral down a steep hill? How about if i say it seats 4 but only install 3 seats as appised to the riders being too fat to fit 4 people inside it? In both cases, theee us a clear attempt to be deceptive and mislead the consumer. Its fraud and why the laws are there in the first place.
he correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.
Congress doesn't need to act. All they need to do is use some of the consumer protection laws and actually protect the consumer. These internet service providers actually sell access to the internet and they make claims to the speed and reliability in the process of selling it. If comcast or Time Warner or ATT or anyone wants to limit the internet on purpose, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers. IF they want to limit the speeds to below the advertised speeds based on a third party payment, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers.
Existing consumer protection laws should apply very nicely. When Comcast advertises an 8 meg unlimited internet connect for $50 a month and delivers a purposely limited version of the internet, they aren't delivering as advertised. It is a purposeful fraud.
So it went from all to most. And you think that means something special or something. It doesn't disprove anything i said so i guess you should deal with it.
FFS it is as if i called your mom a name or something. Wake up and smell reality. Oil and coal give money to both sides. Politicians make money off the same. Its the reality we live in, plain and simple. Now don't come back crying with another biased link claiming that what was actually correct was somehow not.
Thats right. And they have 14 days to put the content back up after the counter claim else google doesn't get the automatic protections from damages in the DMCA from taking the content down. However, i believe their TOS already protects them.
Pretty much works the same way it does outside the movies. Tell a cop to ask your lawyer in real life and you will most likely either be in a position where you need one or are about to be.
But i was trying to exagerate it a bit so you can say a little sarcasm was with the "it works"
Its only around $3.00 per citizen in the us. Perhaps he could just ask for donation and do whatever he wants with it. Hell, $100 a piece from the cultist would probably net 1billion let alone all the people worried about it.
Ever heard of reality? We cannot reduce ghg emission to a level that is under the natural sequestration process. This means no matter what we do, unless it is world wide and drastic, it will continue to increase. Ghg's are the problem if you accept global warming as presented. There are many who think dealing with the issues as they come is more realistic. There are some that say it is impossible to reduce emissions to the amount needed so artificial sequestration is needed. Some see the taxing if carbon as only a political ploy to increase control of the people.
The bottom line is that there are many plans to deal with the ghg problem. His question still stands.
Sure it does. They just detain you until your lawyer shows up and answers. And if he doesn't show, they ask you again before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.
Border agents can be bigger dicks than cops dream about being.
In the township I live in, an internet company wanted to add a fiber line to the poles and the township demanded $3 per customer. The country demanded money also and I heard that with pole positions and rental or surcharges, something around $8 per customer went to government entities if they did it.
Of course there is a state law that doesn't allow all the dipping into the costs if the lines pass through and do not service an area. So the providers decided to skip access along the lines and only run through the area in order to service some commercial entity about 10 miles outside the township.
Of course a way to get around this is to require line sharing at costs like the telcos had to do with the phone lines.
The problem here is not exactly that the US or some other country spied on Indonesia but that in whatever course of events, US citizens who also generally receive special treatment (lawyers) were spied on and this information was passed to the US government where it could have benefited. What effectively happened here is the US government gained information that it is constitutionally and as a matter of US law, barred from gathering and either did use it to their advantage or had the opportunity to do so.
You gain an enormous advantage in knowing what the opposition is doing in any matters of law. Good lawyers study scenarios in order to understand and anticipate the moves of their opposing counsel and recognize when their tactics are working. But knowing first hand could make the difference between winning and losing. That in and of itself does make spying on foreign nations worth while, it just doesn't excuse violating the US constitution and principles of law in the process of doing it. If a normal ordinary person or lawyer were to gain access to this kind of information through a third party (directly or unsolicited), it could cause them to lose their license, case or claim they are representing, or even worse- land them in jail if they used it.
Where's this generations Lee Harvey Oswald when he is actually needed?
He's hiding in the corner afraid of making Joe Biden the 45th president.
Seriously, do you think killing a man is really called for? All it would do is make the government demand more constitutional violations in the name of BHO. Remember Obama would become the rallying cry of every American when they carted you non-conformists off to the gulags.. errr I mean gitmo.
What is needed is for congress to grow a pair and pass a law restricting the NSA. And then they need to actually ignore the claims of racism and impeach the bastards who violate it. There is a difference between monitoring foreigners in foreign lands and US citizens in any land. But just in case someone wants to whine that bush did it, we can impeach Bush too. Although rarely is it ever legit to do something you know is wrong or illegal or unconstitutional simply because someone else did it too so I don't really buy into the but so and so did it on something this freaking obvious.
They most certainly are benefiting under the Affordable Care Act. They are guaranteed not to lose money as provisions have been built into the law in order to compensate for any losses.
There are a lot of things in the PPACA that don't need to be there. There are some that do. I guess the question might be do we toss the baby out with the bath water for being evil or not?
Section 1.162-3 provides, in part, that a taxpayer carrying materials and supplies on hand should include in expenses the charges for materials and supplies only in the amount that are actually consumed and used in operation during the taxable year for which the return is made.
This means that you cannot purchase spare parts or materials in order to defer income for the year. This stops a business from purchasing two months of stock or a back up copier that will sit on a pallet until the current machine breaks in order to create a tax advantage for the year. So yes, this stops the amount paid for the spare parts from becoming an expense for the year they are not used in.
Small businesses exist, and is probably a good reason why we should move to Universal Health Care.
There is no real good reason to move to universal health care. Best guess puts us at 48 million Americans without insurance out of 313 million or roughly 15%. simply expanding Medicare/Medicaid for those who cannot legitimately afford it would be sufficient. getting rid of risk pools by company and mandating they offer any policy sold to a company as an individual policy and perhaps something to ensure preexisting conditions aren't excluded. Looking at the universal system in other countries, they aren't the best unless they are the ones with private systems competing alongside the public system. But depending on where you look, you can find horror stories in all of them. We wouldn't have anything better and likely not anything better then what we have now.
No, I saw a few idiots and mentioned a story about them. People bitch cry and complain, then when they get their way, they seek out what isn't their way. But the only thing relating to the original poster was the bitch cry and complain.
I believe the 6% means dollar for dollar up to 6% of your annual salary. If you put 10% of your earnings a year into your 401k or whatever retirement scheme they use, they will only match up to the 6% of your earnings mark.
Its not hard to find your old coverage is less than the ACA minimum because things like birth control for Senors of cervical pap smears for your male child are not items commonly sought after in insurance before the ACA. There are also some specific taxes that are imposed on employers as well as insurers built into the ACA. Any number of these things could be why the cost is raising and not necessarily less coverage than the ACA outside of a few things that weren't common before the law.
This is actually a smart idea if you can fund and manage the accounting for it properly. It allows your company to take portions of it's profit pretax and pay itself while investing it under the guise of insuring the employees. Some creative accounting can even juggle losses a bit to create tax benefits.
Of course the problem with bean counters is that not only can they manage it properly, they look for ways to save expenses like getting rid of lower level employees that are using the system too much. But then again, bean counters have done many things in the name of saving a few dollars now that ended up costing a lot more in the long run. Where old roommate works, they used to keep spare parts for the machinery on hand so if something broke down, it could be fixed relatively easily. But the bean counters decided it was a waste of money because spare parts count as income so they only order parts after something breaks and the last time, the entire production line was down for 3 days waiting on a part to be delivered then replaced where if it was already available, it would have been back up and running by the end of the day. So they paid for all the employees to show up and stand around for 3 days and also lost out on the revenue they should have been generating during that time. But it saved them money somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
I yhink you missed the part where he and the law said that act had to be interpreted to have either killed or caused damage or the risk of the act could cause the same.
Its not a stretch or rediculous at all if you consider the entirety of it. You see, a news paper printing the government should do X- is an act to influence government. In order to fall under this law, the news paper would have to say something like kill all of them until X happens or maybe burn the gov building down if X doesn't become law.
You see, the important parts are the damage and death. It doesn't even have to happen, just be reasonably possible for it to happen. But i'm not sure i like the idea of possible being largely up to the officer's discretion. Perhaps that is why there is a court review process. So you don't get constantly harrassed until you give up like pussy riot.
By definition prisoners are removed from society because of a conviction of breaking the law. It doesn't make much sence to say you are removed from society but you can still participate in it. Whenthey are removed (imprisioned), they are removed. Or do you think prisoners should be able to start work from home businesses in their cell too? Imprisoning someone is removing them from society.
Up to infers best effot though. Otherwise the language would need to be excep when. So i guess the question is "does "up to" encompass when they are purposely and specifically intentful in limiting to less". I say no because there is no chance of up to if they refuse to allow the speed wich is completely different than something outside their control causing the limitations.
Look at it this way. If i made and sold a car, and in the process i said it would do 70mph am i being fraudulent when i install a mechanical governer to limit it to 60mph and the only way you can see 70 is by coasting in neutral down a steep hill? How about if i say it seats 4 but only install 3 seats as appised to the riders being too fat to fit 4 people inside it? In both cases, theee us a clear attempt to be deceptive and mislead the consumer. Its fraud and why the laws are there in the first place.
Congress doesn't need to act. All they need to do is use some of the consumer protection laws and actually protect the consumer. These internet service providers actually sell access to the internet and they make claims to the speed and reliability in the process of selling it. If comcast or Time Warner or ATT or anyone wants to limit the internet on purpose, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers. IF they want to limit the speeds to below the advertised speeds based on a third party payment, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers.
Existing consumer protection laws should apply very nicely. When Comcast advertises an 8 meg unlimited internet connect for $50 a month and delivers a purposely limited version of the internet, they aren't delivering as advertised. It is a purposeful fraud.
The website isn't part of the white house site? Is the white house website being paid for by something other then tax dollars?
I don't know about official EU officials but I have it on good authority that royalmomma69@compuserve.net is the queen of england's email addrress.
Dude, its puff puff pass. Others want some of what you are smoking so don't bogard the shit.
So you're not going to deal with reality. Thats fine. And i like where you went AC in order to further escape it.
So it went from all to most. And you think that means something special or something. It doesn't disprove anything i said so i guess you should deal with it.
FFS it is as if i called your mom a name or something. Wake up and smell reality. Oil and coal give money to both sides. Politicians make money off the same. Its the reality we live in, plain and simple. Now don't come back crying with another biased link claiming that what was actually correct was somehow not.
Thats right. And they have 14 days to put the content back up after the counter claim else google doesn't get the automatic protections from damages in the DMCA from taking the content down. However, i believe their TOS already protects them.
Don't limit coal and oil to the GOP.the democrats get their fair share too and we had a democrat vice president that owned/s part of an oil company.
If that wasn't true, you would have seen cap and trade in obama's first year also.
Pretty much works the same way it does outside the movies. Tell a cop to ask your lawyer in real life and you will most likely either be in a position where you need one or are about to be.
But i was trying to exagerate it a bit so you can say a little sarcasm was with the "it works"
Its only around $3.00 per citizen in the us. Perhaps he could just ask for donation and do whatever he wants with it. Hell, $100 a piece from the cultist would probably net 1billion let alone all the people worried about it.
Ever heard of reality? We cannot reduce ghg emission to a level that is under the natural sequestration process. This means no matter what we do, unless it is world wide and drastic, it will continue to increase. Ghg's are the problem if you accept global warming as presented. There are many who think dealing with the issues as they come is more realistic. There are some that say it is impossible to reduce emissions to the amount needed so artificial sequestration is needed. Some see the taxing if carbon as only a political ploy to increase control of the people.
The bottom line is that there are many plans to deal with the ghg problem. His question still stands.
Sure it does. They just detain you until your lawyer shows up and answers. And if he doesn't show, they ask you again before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.
Border agents can be bigger dicks than cops dream about being.
In the township I live in, an internet company wanted to add a fiber line to the poles and the township demanded $3 per customer. The country demanded money also and I heard that with pole positions and rental or surcharges, something around $8 per customer went to government entities if they did it.
Of course there is a state law that doesn't allow all the dipping into the costs if the lines pass through and do not service an area. So the providers decided to skip access along the lines and only run through the area in order to service some commercial entity about 10 miles outside the township.
Of course a way to get around this is to require line sharing at costs like the telcos had to do with the phone lines.
The problem here is not exactly that the US or some other country spied on Indonesia but that in whatever course of events, US citizens who also generally receive special treatment (lawyers) were spied on and this information was passed to the US government where it could have benefited. What effectively happened here is the US government gained information that it is constitutionally and as a matter of US law, barred from gathering and either did use it to their advantage or had the opportunity to do so.
You gain an enormous advantage in knowing what the opposition is doing in any matters of law. Good lawyers study scenarios in order to understand and anticipate the moves of their opposing counsel and recognize when their tactics are working. But knowing first hand could make the difference between winning and losing. That in and of itself does make spying on foreign nations worth while, it just doesn't excuse violating the US constitution and principles of law in the process of doing it. If a normal ordinary person or lawyer were to gain access to this kind of information through a third party (directly or unsolicited), it could cause them to lose their license, case or claim they are representing, or even worse- land them in jail if they used it.
He's hiding in the corner afraid of making Joe Biden the 45th president.
Seriously, do you think killing a man is really called for? All it would do is make the government demand more constitutional violations in the name of BHO. Remember Obama would become the rallying cry of every American when they carted you non-conformists off to the gulags.. errr I mean gitmo.
What is needed is for congress to grow a pair and pass a law restricting the NSA. And then they need to actually ignore the claims of racism and impeach the bastards who violate it. There is a difference between monitoring foreigners in foreign lands and US citizens in any land. But just in case someone wants to whine that bush did it, we can impeach Bush too. Although rarely is it ever legit to do something you know is wrong or illegal or unconstitutional simply because someone else did it too so I don't really buy into the but so and so did it on something this freaking obvious.
They most certainly are benefiting under the Affordable Care Act. They are guaranteed not to lose money as provisions have been built into the law in order to compensate for any losses.
There are a lot of things in the PPACA that don't need to be there. There are some that do. I guess the question might be do we toss the baby out with the bath water for being evil or not?
According to Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2012-14 states in part
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2012-14...
This means that you cannot purchase spare parts or materials in order to defer income for the year. This stops a business from purchasing two months of stock or a back up copier that will sit on a pallet until the current machine breaks in order to create a tax advantage for the year. So yes, this stops the amount paid for the spare parts from becoming an expense for the year they are not used in.
There is no real good reason to move to universal health care. Best guess puts us at 48 million Americans without insurance out of 313 million or roughly 15%. simply expanding Medicare/Medicaid for those who cannot legitimately afford it would be sufficient. getting rid of risk pools by company and mandating they offer any policy sold to a company as an individual policy and perhaps something to ensure preexisting conditions aren't excluded. Looking at the universal system in other countries, they aren't the best unless they are the ones with private systems competing alongside the public system. But depending on where you look, you can find horror stories in all of them. We wouldn't have anything better and likely not anything better then what we have now.
No, I saw a few idiots and mentioned a story about them. People bitch cry and complain, then when they get their way, they seek out what isn't their way. But the only thing relating to the original poster was the bitch cry and complain.
I believe the 6% means dollar for dollar up to 6% of your annual salary. If you put 10% of your earnings a year into your 401k or whatever retirement scheme they use, they will only match up to the 6% of your earnings mark.
Its not hard to find your old coverage is less than the ACA minimum because things like birth control for Senors of cervical pap smears for your male child are not items commonly sought after in insurance before the ACA. There are also some specific taxes that are imposed on employers as well as insurers built into the ACA. Any number of these things could be why the cost is raising and not necessarily less coverage than the ACA outside of a few things that weren't common before the law.
This is actually a smart idea if you can fund and manage the accounting for it properly. It allows your company to take portions of it's profit pretax and pay itself while investing it under the guise of insuring the employees. Some creative accounting can even juggle losses a bit to create tax benefits.
Of course the problem with bean counters is that not only can they manage it properly, they look for ways to save expenses like getting rid of lower level employees that are using the system too much. But then again, bean counters have done many things in the name of saving a few dollars now that ended up costing a lot more in the long run. Where old roommate works, they used to keep spare parts for the machinery on hand so if something broke down, it could be fixed relatively easily. But the bean counters decided it was a waste of money because spare parts count as income so they only order parts after something breaks and the last time, the entire production line was down for 3 days waiting on a part to be delivered then replaced where if it was already available, it would have been back up and running by the end of the day. So they paid for all the employees to show up and stand around for 3 days and also lost out on the revenue they should have been generating during that time. But it saved them money somehow.
HE doesn't need to write a law, an executive order will work just fine. While he's at it, why don't we try to get him to redefine the value of PI.