This isn't trying to improve anything though. All it does is limit the pay of people who actually achieve. This can be gotten around reletively simply too with deferments into stock options.
All this is is dressed up class warefare that intends to make the have nots feel better not by improving their situation but by limiting someone else ability to be better off. Most companies that pay those high salaries tie a significant portion to the profitability of the company. If that stops, so will profits after a certain point as will
Because it is morally wrong to tell a person the max they can make. If you think not, then wait until the government decides you have to take a pay cut and cannot make over a certain amount. And no, you cannot claim that it will only be used to penalize the rich. Once the government has the ability to do so, that ability extends to all of the country.
It would be better to unionize and tie the salary of the grunts to the executive pay levels. Perhaps in the form of bonuses too. Either way, if the government can say you as a ceo can only make a certain amount, they can say you as the burger flipper or it drone or whatever can be limited in pay too.
What is the umm wait about? There are plenty if instances that you might want your voice heard but not recognized as your voice. This could be from fears of reprecussion in your job, home life, or even personal safety. There could be lots of reasons where the lack of anonimity silences your voice.
You do realise the US has had a standing relationship with kuwait since before the US was even a country right? So much so that they even allowed us to stage marines for the invasion of Tripoli even though they were part of the ottoman empire. I mean to claim we didn't have an interest there is like saying we didn't have any interest in either of the world wars.
It seems that the more the ACA comes on line, the more about it that is disliked. For instance, the 2 billion dollars given to coop health plans wighout congressional oversight seems to be the next big thing we will hear about.
I think the biggest problem is that it allows too much independence to unelected officials with little oversight. Another problem is access to birth control. Abortion was said to be out of the reach of government due to a fourth amendment to privacy. Now that access is built in and the government hasa qualified interest in everyones healthcare, that right to privacy is gone making previous landmark cases invalid to current situations. In fact, the mandate challenge used the exact same argument that won row v wade and was not rejected but the law was reinterpreted to claim the penalty was a tax in order to get around it.
There are a lot of things poping up that don't seem to be as intended. Thee aca is supposed to move us to a single payer system if you listen to the right people. Most people don't trust the government to being capable of that. They will demand changes, keeping parts that are good and rejecting most of the rest.
And every widget manufacturer gets to write off the cost of making widgets. In fact all businesses generally get to write off the costs of doing business .
I'm not sure this is an argument you can win. Some people simply do not know better and think any tax break is one specifically written for their pet company as if the law mentions the company specifically. They cannot generally be boyhrred wiyh facts as they try to argue from emotion. This is largely because the presentation to them was argued from emotion so there is somewhat of an overriding emotional element to their position. It is similar to a tax cut across the board being only tax cuts for the rich. Similarly, the emotional element makes anything that their pet company might brnefit from done for that company. The war in iraq is like that even though iraq oil was still limited by un embargo until recently- the qar qas for big oil regardless of any other reasons or causes.
You simply cannot win arguments like that. Arguments from emotion ingore facts.
Extreme overhauls are not a bad thing. Thr aca will need one and it can be said that it should have had it before it was originally passed.
This is especially true when the senate is do closely divided that a single party cannot end a filibuster. At 60 votes, that would mean roughly 30 states nerded to be in line with the legislation. With 51 votes, only half yhe country plus half of one more state can override the rest. The burden is decreased to the point litterrally half the country or more could be in disagreement with the legislation or significant portions of it entirely.
The senate cannot be gerymandered. This is the last sanity check before it gets sent to the adiminstration to become law.
Of course it is not all about safety. If i paid a premium for my house because of an athstetic standard in place, i expect that standard to remain in place. Go build your dream home then tell me you will not fight the smokestack factory someone wants to put in next door or the car lot or the liqor store or whatever else. Solar panels are no different in this respect as it changes the natural views just as artificially. This also isn't a republican thing. It isa people thing just like the kennedy's putting a stop to the off shore wind farms that would spoil their views.. not in my back yard is not unique to any party.
And hence the problem with entitlements. Even if you do nothing to the budget for entitlrments, they expand. If you try to address them, you are vilified and stopped before a complete thought makes it out. So all that is left to realistally cut is discretionary and research (stem) where the most economic benifit can be had.
It is also not used to generate power by the utility company. It is only mandated because it replaced the chemical used to oxygenate fuel in order to meet epa regulations in gas engines. The previous chemical was being found in ground water and the health risks weren't completely known so ethanol replaced it.
It really is hard to connect ethanol to solar lime that unless we ignore important facts in order to make points.
And it is not veto power either. It is filibuster power which can prevent legislation from advancing but is often defeated by simply negotiating things. This stops one party in yhe majority from ignoring the other party entirely.
Anyways, this story is a second part of the previous about this. The new part is the threat to refuse to accredit the cars if they do not do what they want. If anything, i see it as a pro tesla story wiyh the government looking bad. I mean theatening to stop safety testing a car because the company is bragging about aceing the tests.
You should look grammar up. You will see it was used corectly. But i suspect you know that already.
BTW.. i dont havr a lot of editing options on my phone which i have been posting from so i ignore the mistakes and move on. You should refrain from making judgements basef on grammar- especially when you just got smacked around.
Lol. So grammar dictates the validity of a point. I see.
The emporer doesn,'t matter. You made the comment about the established practitioners of an established religion. You deflecting from your inability to defend that statement is meaningless in regards to the statement. It is as if you are trying to justify saying the sky is blue because you stop on red traffic lights. It is a fallacy built around completely separate concepts.
Yes, read that once again to mean you failed and the problem is with you. You lack the ability to comprehend what you are talking about and it is obvious.
I'm not sure they count ring species as valid. All the examples i know of are either due to geographical separation or mechanical limitations like a large dog and a small dog.
Now i understand your problem. With all that supposed learning you failed to grasp rudimentary principals of the topic in hand. I can conclude you are either lieing or simple minded but in either case, you ae still deflecting. Now you sem to think Jesus as a teenager somehow magically supports your assertion. I don'T need to look it up as it is outside the christian faith. I'm not trying to convince you to believe or not believe, just call you out on your incorect supposition about killing which you still cannot support.
G.W Bush had them in his first two budgets which also was scored to be ballanced by the gao and the cbo.
I point this out because it is an obvious point of failure in some projections. The problem with projections lile these is that the economy and often influences completely outside their control can collapse them without any consideration.
This is a fault of government trying to pay with future revenue to. It easily racks up debt when those projections don't materialize or fall short of its goals. Your comment is spot on.
Lol. As i said, you simply do not know what you are talking about. You made a comment about christians and reach for teachings of the jews to justify your confusion and do not even understand the concept of covenants.
The old testament is not the teachings of jesus which is christianity. It is the jewish history that supports Jesus as Christ and is only loiked at to either support jesus as the Christ or to understand God's expectations in the absence of teachings from Jesus. You can't grasp that concept because you looked at the words not the context or lessons conveyed by them. It is you who is confused and wrong because of that. The bears killing children is not a christian teaching, it is a jewish history about events of a long past covenant for context leading into christianity which is brought about by the death and resurection of Jesus.
Jesus was a jew in case you didn't know. Even though the bible was assembled by man, its stories existed long before it was assembled and the meanings of them have points outside its assembly. Yet you claim to know and understand this but fail to grasp the concept while declaring killing is against the christian religion and justifying that with claiming the old testament doesn't make sence.
There is nothing wrong with my comprehension and i suggest you look the word up because it fits you better. While you are at it, look up covenant, look up how many there are in the christian bible and definately try figure out what dogma actually means. You comment on hell being picking and choosing clearly demonstrates you are lacking in basic knowledge of this. While you did point to a difference between two christian religions, you failed to point out picking and choosing and relied on them both picking but placing different emphasis mixed with dogma in its interpretation.
Logic and reality are not on your side. If you think this is a problem of me not listening to you, then please put together a coherent thought based in reality and the teachings of the christian religion and put it forward. I'm definately not claiming you need to belive in the religion but i'm certainly calling your criticisms out based on your lack of knowlege of it.
Actually, the contention was that the separate species was the same species because of the ability to interbreed which at one time the inability was key to denoting a deparate species. The though was same species but different races like we see today.
I don't care to get into an evolution verses creation argument. Just stating the argument as i heard it. I do agree this is no big news or anything novel as the concept has been around a while but not widely accepted. I guess the news to me is the concept of another unknown race or species being involved
Lol.. you put forward no coherant factual points and when pressed to justify what you did put forward you went off in twenty different directions it seemed like. It is as if you were running from your statements.
Anyways, understanding things which are true is not a bias but reality in and of itself. This reliance of yours to discount your failures on a claimed bias of others is silly at best. If you desire to move on, i agree as nothing productive seems to be happening. I still hold your position on killing is incorect and i still hold that you failed to support it. It sounds as if you are angry at organized religion or something. I hope you work those issues out.
The differences in hell are dogmatic. Neither are picking and choosing, they are differing in the meaning. So you failed there.
The point of the emporer getting the stories is that they existed as part of a religion before him. That makes your point moot. Your ramblings about it is deflection to maintain your beliefs.
I read what you wrote, i also said you were wrong. That is because you are wrong- there is nothing in the christian religion forbiding killing- just murder. None of the various religions pick and choose anything, they only differ on emphasis and dogma. But you have done a good job wandering away from those points you tried to make. Deflecting from the question and changing the subjects is what people who cannot support their position does
It is not as subjective as you think. Reasonable is a legal standard dictating that enough elements of the probable cause is present to connect the person or thing being searched. It would be unreasonable to stop and search you and your car because i shot a person. It would be reasonable to search you if i was caught in your car after doing the same. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to search everone who owns a gun, but it would be reasonable to search me because the witness described me. So the reasonableness is directly associated with the crime and in limited situations for the safety of the investigator.
There is no real problem. You see, rarely do either of us hsve any right to interfere with the other person's rights. This means if you are swinging your fists, i cannot walk into them to stop you. If you start swinging your fists, you cannot do it where you know you will hit me. This is something that is decided every day when driving too. Your right to drive in a specific lane is predicated on whether it is already occupied or not. Sometimes mistakes happen, sometimes purposeful infringement happens. Most of the time the law deals with it accordingly but the majority of the time, it works peacefully.
But what you seem to be missing is that only certain rights are protected by the constitution. This protection extends to what the government can and cannot do. It is completely different than your right to swing a fist or not be struck by one. Your right to not be hit by a drunk driver does not remove the constitutional bar against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't trying to improve anything though. All it does is limit the pay of people who actually achieve. This can be gotten around reletively simply too with deferments into stock options.
All this is is dressed up class warefare that intends to make the have nots feel better not by improving their situation but by limiting someone else ability to be better off. Most companies that pay those high salaries tie a significant portion to the profitability of the company. If that stops, so will profits after a certain point as will
Because it is morally wrong to tell a person the max they can make. If you think not, then wait until the government decides you have to take a pay cut and cannot make over a certain amount. And no, you cannot claim that it will only be used to penalize the rich. Once the government has the ability to do so, that ability extends to all of the country.
It would be better to unionize and tie the salary of the grunts to the executive pay levels. Perhaps in the form of bonuses too. Either way, if the government can say you as a ceo can only make a certain amount, they can say you as the burger flipper or it drone or whatever can be limited in pay too.
What is the umm wait about? There are plenty if instances that you might want your voice heard but not recognized as your voice. This could be from fears of reprecussion in your job, home life, or even personal safety. There could be lots of reasons where the lack of anonimity silences your voice.
You do realise the US has had a standing relationship with kuwait since before the US was even a country right? So much so that they even allowed us to stage marines for the invasion of Tripoli even though they were part of the ottoman empire. I mean to claim we didn't have an interest there is like saying we didn't have any interest in either of the world wars.
It seems that the more the ACA comes on line, the more about it that is disliked. For instance, the 2 billion dollars given to coop health plans wighout congressional oversight seems to be the next big thing we will hear about.
I think the biggest problem is that it allows too much independence to unelected officials with little oversight. Another problem is access to birth control. Abortion was said to be out of the reach of government due to a fourth amendment to privacy. Now that access is built in and the government hasa qualified interest in everyones healthcare, that right to privacy is gone making previous landmark cases invalid to current situations. In fact, the mandate challenge used the exact same argument that won row v wade and was not rejected but the law was reinterpreted to claim the penalty was a tax in order to get around it.
There are a lot of things poping up that don't seem to be as intended. Thee aca is supposed to move us to a single payer system if you listen to the right people. Most people don't trust the government to being capable of that. They will demand changes, keeping parts that are good and rejecting most of the rest.
And every widget manufacturer gets to write off the cost of making widgets. In fact all businesses generally get to write off the costs of doing business .
Why is this a subsidy for an income tax?
I'm not sure this is an argument you can win. Some people simply do not know better and think any tax break is one specifically written for their pet company as if the law mentions the company specifically. They cannot generally be boyhrred wiyh facts as they try to argue from emotion. This is largely because the presentation to them was argued from emotion so there is somewhat of an overriding emotional element to their position. It is similar to a tax cut across the board being only tax cuts for the rich. Similarly, the emotional element makes anything that their pet company might brnefit from done for that company. The war in iraq is like that even though iraq oil was still limited by un embargo until recently- the qar qas for big oil regardless of any other reasons or causes.
You simply cannot win arguments like that. Arguments from emotion ingore facts.
Extreme overhauls are not a bad thing. Thr aca will need one and it can be said that it should have had it before it was originally passed.
This is especially true when the senate is do closely divided that a single party cannot end a filibuster. At 60 votes, that would mean roughly 30 states nerded to be in line with the legislation. With 51 votes, only half yhe country plus half of one more state can override the rest. The burden is decreased to the point litterrally half the country or more could be in disagreement with the legislation or significant portions of it entirely.
The senate cannot be gerymandered. This is the last sanity check before it gets sent to the adiminstration to become law.
Of course it is not all about safety. If i paid a premium for my house because of an athstetic standard in place, i expect that standard to remain in place. Go build your dream home then tell me you will not fight the smokestack factory someone wants to put in next door or the car lot or the liqor store or whatever else. Solar panels are no different in this respect as it changes the natural views just as artificially. This also isn't a republican thing. It isa people thing just like the kennedy's putting a stop to the off shore wind farms that would spoil their views.. not in my back yard is not unique to any party.
And hence the problem with entitlements. Even if you do nothing to the budget for entitlrments, they expand. If you try to address them, you are vilified and stopped before a complete thought makes it out. So all that is left to realistally cut is discretionary and research (stem) where the most economic benifit can be had.
It is also not used to generate power by the utility company. It is only mandated because it replaced the chemical used to oxygenate fuel in order to meet epa regulations in gas engines. The previous chemical was being found in ground water and the health risks weren't completely known so ethanol replaced it.
It really is hard to connect ethanol to solar lime that unless we ignore important facts in order to make points.
And it is not veto power either. It is filibuster power which can prevent legislation from advancing but is often defeated by simply negotiating things. This stops one party in yhe majority from ignoring the other party entirely.
I'm not so sure of that.
Anyways, this story is a second part of the previous about this. The new part is the threat to refuse to accredit the cars if they do not do what they want. If anything, i see it as a pro tesla story wiyh the government looking bad. I mean theatening to stop safety testing a car because the company is bragging about aceing the tests.
Its just insane
You should look grammar up. You will see it was used corectly. But i suspect you know that already.
BTW.. i dont havr a lot of editing options on my phone which i have been posting from so i ignore the mistakes and move on. You should refrain from making judgements basef on grammar- especially when you just got smacked around.
Lol. So grammar dictates the validity of a point. I see.
The emporer doesn,'t matter. You made the comment about the established practitioners of an established religion. You deflecting from your inability to defend that statement is meaningless in regards to the statement. It is as if you are trying to justify saying the sky is blue because you stop on red traffic lights. It is a fallacy built around completely separate concepts.
Yes, read that once again to mean you failed and the problem is with you. You lack the ability to comprehend what you are talking about and it is obvious.
I'm not sure they count ring species as valid. All the examples i know of are either due to geographical separation or mechanical limitations like a large dog and a small dog.
Now i understand your problem. With all that supposed learning you failed to grasp rudimentary principals of the topic in hand. I can conclude you are either lieing or simple minded but in either case, you ae still deflecting. Now you sem to think Jesus as a teenager somehow magically supports your assertion. I don'T need to look it up as it is outside the christian faith. I'm not trying to convince you to believe or not believe, just call you out on your incorect supposition about killing which you still cannot support.
G.W Bush had them in his first two budgets which also was scored to be ballanced by the gao and the cbo.
I point this out because it is an obvious point of failure in some projections. The problem with projections lile these is that the economy and often influences completely outside their control can collapse them without any consideration.
This is a fault of government trying to pay with future revenue to. It easily racks up debt when those projections don't materialize or fall short of its goals. Your comment is spot on.
Lol. As i said, you simply do not know what you are talking about. You made a comment about christians and reach for teachings of the jews to justify your confusion and do not even understand the concept of covenants.
The old testament is not the teachings of jesus which is christianity. It is the jewish history that supports Jesus as Christ and is only loiked at to either support jesus as the Christ or to understand God's expectations in the absence of teachings from Jesus. You can't grasp that concept because you looked at the words not the context or lessons conveyed by them. It is you who is confused and wrong because of that. The bears killing children is not a christian teaching, it is a jewish history about events of a long past covenant for context leading into christianity which is brought about by the death and resurection of Jesus.
Jesus was a jew in case you didn't know. Even though the bible was assembled by man, its stories existed long before it was assembled and the meanings of them have points outside its assembly. Yet you claim to know and understand this but fail to grasp the concept while declaring killing is against the christian religion and justifying that with claiming the old testament doesn't make sence.
There is nothing wrong with my comprehension and i suggest you look the word up because it fits you better. While you are at it, look up covenant, look up how many there are in the christian bible and definately try figure out what dogma actually means. You comment on hell being picking and choosing clearly demonstrates you are lacking in basic knowledge of this. While you did point to a difference between two christian religions, you failed to point out picking and choosing and relied on them both picking but placing different emphasis mixed with dogma in its interpretation.
Logic and reality are not on your side. If you think this is a problem of me not listening to you, then please put together a coherent thought based in reality and the teachings of the christian religion and put it forward. I'm definately not claiming you need to belive in the religion but i'm certainly calling your criticisms out based on your lack of knowlege of it.
I thunk he took the " lord of the rings" comparison as ring species which he explained.
Actually, the contention was that the separate species was the same species because of the ability to interbreed which at one time the inability was key to denoting a deparate species. The though was same species but different races like we see today.
I don't care to get into an evolution verses creation argument. Just stating the argument as i heard it. I do agree this is no big news or anything novel as the concept has been around a while but not widely accepted. I guess the news to me is the concept of another unknown race or species being involved
Lol.. you put forward no coherant factual points and when pressed to justify what you did put forward you went off in twenty different directions it seemed like. It is as if you were running from your statements.
Anyways, understanding things which are true is not a bias but reality in and of itself. This reliance of yours to discount your failures on a claimed bias of others is silly at best. If you desire to move on, i agree as nothing productive seems to be happening. I still hold your position on killing is incorect and i still hold that you failed to support it. It sounds as if you are angry at organized religion or something. I hope you work those issues out.
The differences in hell are dogmatic. Neither are picking and choosing, they are differing in the meaning. So you failed there.
The point of the emporer getting the stories is that they existed as part of a religion before him. That makes your point moot. Your ramblings about it is deflection to maintain your beliefs.
I read what you wrote, i also said you were wrong. That is because you are wrong- there is nothing in the christian religion forbiding killing- just murder. None of the various religions pick and choose anything, they only differ on emphasis and dogma. But you have done a good job wandering away from those points you tried to make. Deflecting from the question and changing the subjects is what people who cannot support their position does
It is not as subjective as you think. Reasonable is a legal standard dictating that enough elements of the probable cause is present to connect the person or thing being searched. It would be unreasonable to stop and search you and your car because i shot a person. It would be reasonable to search you if i was caught in your car after doing the same. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to search everone who owns a gun, but it would be reasonable to search me because the witness described me. So the reasonableness is directly associated with the crime and in limited situations for the safety of the investigator.
There is no real problem. You see, rarely do either of us hsve any right to interfere with the other person's rights. This means if you are swinging your fists, i cannot walk into them to stop you. If you start swinging your fists, you cannot do it where you know you will hit me. This is something that is decided every day when driving too. Your right to drive in a specific lane is predicated on whether it is already occupied or not. Sometimes mistakes happen, sometimes purposeful infringement happens. Most of the time the law deals with it accordingly but the majority of the time, it works peacefully.
But what you seem to be missing is that only certain rights are protected by the constitution. This protection extends to what the government can and cannot do. It is completely different than your right to swing a fist or not be struck by one. Your right to not be hit by a drunk driver does not remove the constitutional bar against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.