10% or more of your yearly income is not a reasonable price. That is what the highest level of income the subsidies are supposed to compensate to if you qualify for them. Except that you won't get subsidies working independently because your income will reflect a lot more than just wages being your own business.
The way the law is written, any employer portion of coverage is not taxed to the employee. Or to put it more simple, the employer's contributions to health coverage does not count as income unless you are the employer then all your expense is considered income. Now, if that portion or any qualified health care expense exceeds either 7.5% or 14% of your income, then the portion in excess can be deducted but you have to itemize which may reduce other benefits as well.
Power is the total amount of energy available commonly expressed in watts or joules, sometimes horsepower when not specific to electrical current where as volts is part of the measurement used to calculate power when dealing with electrical currents. Amps is the second component of power in which you multiple the amps by the voltage to get the power in watts.
I don't know if you were playing on the mistakes and I ruined it for you or if you didn't catch the issue (it took me a minute to see it). I hope I didn't stop you from doing the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.
The problem with your position is that when people kill themselves through drugs, they often take others with them. Cough medicine actually has another purpose so the risks are weighed.
None of the scenarios I mentioned are not out of the norm as they have been behind high profile or major fatality accidents within the past 10-20 years or so. In Chicago alone, 2 train derailments have been linked to high blood levels of Marijuana and one had crystal meth in his system in the 90's when he parked a truck on a RR crossing. The Good Will building that just collapsed about a year ago was because of a mistake a crane operator made while working on a building next door- who BTW, had a high blood concentration of Marijuana.
More people are killed or suffer serious health issues every year from motor vehicle accidents than from Transfats yet we seek to outlaw transfats.
Please explain this logic a little better for me. I am particulsrly stuck on the connection between already paying or already subsidizing the uninsure and the massive increases in costs because we are sybsidizing people who don't have insurance.
It seems to me that x+1 would be the same as 1+x and U*P is the same as P*U. That is after all what you are saying with the already subsidizing line. And this isn't even getting to the logic of spreading those subsidies out over more people should reduce the cost to any one person when it is spread between more people. It is as if thr average of 2+2 is now 6 or something.
So yes, i need some explaination to why basic math fails that line of reasoning. If we are already subdidising then, then subsidising them should be about the same.
No shit. I mean i always smoke pot while driving an 18 wheeler down the intrrstate at 70mph. I find the tunnelvision helps me concentrate on the dotted lines. My brother is a crane operater and says getting stoned calms his nerves when placing 6000 pound steel beams right next to a couple workers 25 stories in the air.
I often take meth while driving too, but sometimes have to tone it down with some wild turkey. Its my body, i should be able to do whatever i want to it right. . Oh i gotta go, that heroin adict is at the door and if i don:'t watch her like a hawk, things disapear.
If that was the case, then the amounts of increase would reflect ther per student value of chsnge adjusted for inflation. That doesn't seem to be the case though.
But the gp was correct, most people are claiming their high tuition cost are also counting room and board. Unfortunately, most schools require you to live on campus for at least the freshman year. And then there is the problem of not having campuses in every town making staying away from home a neccesity for some. So including housing costs is not entirely dishonest.
It might be if anyone's house had been damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Of course you are guessing on the 70 million years too. It could be 20 or 70 years, we have no way of knowing. But i bet california might have rather had several small quakes that the big on in the 90's. And yes, that is a guess too.
Lol.. you mean in the land of junior getting expelled because the way he ate a pop tart left the food looking like a gun? Or a land where people think it is just that veterins face arrest in order to see open air memorials built to honor the sacrifice they and their generation made, to honor the bravery they were forced to summon under threat of death or worse while illegal immigrants protest in the same area over not being given citizenship rights and having their illegal status abolished?
The brave are still here. They just care about different things and are being pushed to the sidelines. The new brave replacing them step outside of conformity all the time, except they end up being branded terrorist for coloring outside the lines and have their crayon promptly confiscated until they can be good little liberals.
Looks like we are in agreement. I must have misread your earlier reply. Still, it is harder to leave your family or school that it is you piano teacher's house.
And as for forming your own opinions, i know people in their 40s who haven't figured out how to eat with their mouth shut. Thats the way they were raised and don't understand how irritating, gross, and downright anoying it is to see the food in their mouth tumble between their teeth with specs flying out and back onto their plate while the comping and lips smaking makes you want to punch them or something.
(Note, i.can't stand to hear someone eat. Won't even go to restaurants unless i know the background music is loud enough to cover the noise of others. And if it isn't, i find a reason to excuse myself and will eat in the car instead. )
The article suggests an undocumented fault line and the CO2 is lubricating it allowing nature to work its course sooner rather that later.
If that is the case, i would think this actually lessens the probability of a catasrophic earthquakein the future due to stress being relieved over time in smaller amounts instead of one large event. But i'M only guessing.
My understanding is that reseting the passwords resulted in default config files which made it impracticle to do becsuse there was no know copies of the working configs.
To stick with the truck analogy, after they got the keys, they needed to rebuild the motors to return to normal.
The drug testing laws have been upheld in court many times. I'm actualy subject to random tests due to my job and i have looked into this for wuite a while.
Also, the courts have said that federal bans on pot use supercede state laws.whether it is constitutional or not, the courts are allowing prosecution and conviction.
Quite true which is why i attempted to add authority. If you attemp to intimidate me into doing something, i can leave, i can tell an authority figutre. If i can't leave or you are the authority figure, i have no choice but to accept it. That is somewhat how brain washing occures in situations like with stockholm syndrome. But more pointedly, if im supposed to learn from you, how do i know it is wrong or not just the way things are?
Ehh.. It depends on what suburban you have. The 2500 in 2 or 4 wheel drive over the last few years have a cargo capacity of around 2100lbs which is within a couple hundred pounds of 10,000 kg. transporting it across country would be more along the lines of 70 cents per mile at 5 miles per gallon of fuel and fuel costing $3.50 per gallon plus normal wear and tear. It might be cheaper having it transported on the back of a truck. Size and weight would likely be around 30-50 cents per miles as part of a consolidated shipment with no additional wear and tear on the vehicle.
the rest of what you mention sounds pretty straight forward. It's just that some suburbans are actually built like trucks and can handle some weight.
Nah, never happen. Federal law allows drug screening and it will supersede state law. In fact, federal law requires drug screening for certain jobs and pot is one of the tier 1 drugs specifically outlawed.
Also, federal law allows an out for workers compensation and liability claims if the person is impaired by drugs or alcohol. The problem with pot screening is that it stays in your system without having a detrimental effect on yourself. You cannot currently screen someone to determine if they are under the influence of pot so any amounts in your system over a very small amount is considered a positive.
The issue isn't if you smoked pot, it is if you are under the influence of it at work or while performing a specific safety sensitive job function. Because of the limitations of the screening, it is treated similar to alcohol and any amounts in your system is considered to be influencing you.
How about a mother and son marrying? Father and daughter?
I think one of the problems with sibling marriages is that one sibling generally ends up in a position of power or authority over the other which is along the lines of why high school teachers aren't allows to date their students.
since he can't get re-elected he could give guantanamo back to cuba, strategic advantages for future presidents be damned. public opinion be damned.
No, he couldn't. It would take an act of congress to allow him to do so. The president cannot unilaterally make international agreements or rescind them unless they are executive agreements which congress may or may not honor or obstruct. There would have to be a law or a grant from congress allowing the president to give up property in order for him to dispose of Guantanamo.
It may work differently in other countries, but the reality of the situation is that the President of the United States is pretty much powerless on his own. Most of everything he does needs congress behind it. Good leaders usually have no problems with that which might have created an illusion of more independent power misleading our perception in the past. He can create policy in how the executive functions, but he cannot dispose of property or treaties or the likes without congress being involved. The best he could do is order Guantanamo to be evacuated and abandoned but the US would still retain rights to it.
You are working overtime to draw lines that simple are not there. If you directed just a portion of all that energy into something actually real, I'm betting you could change the world for the better. But until then, you are only tilting at windmills that aren't even there outside of your mind.
Is there any evidence that his mother, Ann Dunham does not fit those parameters? I can't find anything that says she spent significant time outside of the US before Barak's birth.
Are you dense? Of course his mother meets that criteria. The next onus would be the retention period you originally pointed to in which Barack would have to be in the counrty for 5 consecutive years between the age of 14 and 28 with entering the country no later then his 23rd birthday or his citizenship is revoked. His books show that wasn't the case but by all means, ignore everything pertinent and think there is a problem with other people.
As for Barak himself it doesn't appear his mother took him to Indonesia until he was six years old after his mother graduated from the University of Hawaii in 1967. He was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents in 1971 and graduated from high school there (in 1979?).
What makes you think I think anything about it? I have already said I'm not a birther but I can understand why some of them think that way. So he was in Hawaii and going to school there at age 9. He would have been 14 on august 4th 1975. If he left the US after 1979, he would have only met 4 of his 5 year retention period assuming he left after his birth date. There is contention among birthers who seem to think after high school, he went with his mother back to Indonesia for a period of time before returning to the US that would have broken the entire consecutive part of the 5 consecutive years.
What makes you think there is any reason his citizenship could have been stripped from him without him personally renouncing it?
Perhaps reading comprehension is not one of your strong points. I can understand that, you appear to be an Obama supporter. The 1952 immigration law specifically said citizenship would be removed if he did not meet a set of criteria due to the nature of one parent being a citizen and born outside the US if that was true. That criteria was to be living inside the US for 5 consecutive years between the age of 14 and 28 with it being necessary to enter the country for this retention period before his 23rd birthday. If that was not met, according to law, his citizenship would have been removed by law.
You may not be a hard core birther but you act like a soft one at least.
All this crap is completely available on the internet. The fact that I have to spoon feed it to you because you are either too ignorant to look it up, or too lazy to investigate what your opposition is claiming has absolutely no reflection on my beliefs other then I choose not to be an idiot repeating crap about things I know nothing about. You might enjoy running through life failing to understand the people around you and just shrugging it off as you being special or something but I can't.
Obama was born in Hawaii just like his birth certificate said. I never questioned that at all, but I did question why he held it back, spent millions of dollars fighting it's release in court, and finally after everyone who does suspect his citizenship had amassed craploadss of evidence to the contrary like interviews with his grandmother on his father's side who seems to think she was at his birth in Kenya and held him moments after he was born and his wife slipping up and claiming he was born in kenya, he releases it. The simple thing to do would have been to simple say, here, it proves I was born in Hawaii and my mother was a citizen so I am too, now shut up and get over it. But he didn't. He went through great pains- actually obstructing efforts to determine the truth, in order to keep the birther movement alive. and that was my entire point, Obama could have ended that before it even grew fangs but instead he purposely attempted to keep it around for whatever reason he saw an advantage with. Now, if the Obamacare is sabotaged, you can believe it would be by the administration for some purpose we will never know.
Shit, microfilm copies of the Honolulu newspapers from the time show his birth announcement was published. You think that was faked? Hell, there is no doubt his mother was a citizen of the USA. From the by parentage page:
Look dude, first of all, I'm not and never was a birther so I do not know what was and what was not acceptable. A news paper clipping is a third party but it is not an official state documentation that could have ended all questions at the time. The newspaper only said Mr and MS, Barack H. Obama of some address has a son. It didn't say the son was Barack or that the birth happened at a specific hospital or place.
And the percentage page you linked to ignores the section right below it that places requirements for lengths of time the parent had to previously been in the US in order for the citizenship to occur. They were right in front of you too which either tells me you completely ignored them or you attempted to conceal them in order to present something that wasn't.
The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[7]
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[8] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[9]
According to Obama's own books, if he wasn't born in US territories, because of a single parent citizenship, his own citizenship is ambiguous as not only is there a resident requirement for his mother, but the 1952 immigration and nationality act specified his retention period as being for five years between the ages of 14 and 28 and he had to enter the US for the five consecutive years before his 23rd birthday. This is something else his books do not help him with. Speaking of his books not helping, his publisher ever printed a brochure claiming he was Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii which lasted from 91 through several revisions until after he took office.
The general interpretation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Presidential qualifications has been that anyone who is a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen regardless of of where they are born. If you want to change that interpretation I imagine you'll have to take it to the Supreme Court but I'd be surprised if they changed it.
And the problem was, if Obama was not born in US territory, he wasn't a citizen at birth unless he went to the US and remained in the US for a period of time and at the appropriate times which his own books show didn't happen. Furthermore, I have trouble assuming he is a natural born citizen when his citizenship could have been stripped from him.
Yes, Hillary or her supporters couldn't stand the idea of Obama becoming president. That after all is where the question of his legitimacy came from- along with John McCain's legitimacy.
But once the convincing argument was raised, can you blame others for demanding it to be resolved? McCain had absolutely no problem resolving his. Obama had a secrete panel vouch for his credentials as everything was locked out to the general public and we had to take the word of people who supported him as the only proof initially offered. The constitutional qualifications for being president is actually something some people find important just like other provisions in the constitution, some of which are due process of law, restrictions on search and seizures, free speech, the abolition of slavery and the protections against racial discrimination and many more.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue. I never said the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was not supported by republicans. I said it was passed under Clinton which is not Bush as the op suggested with his claim on the SEC.
Go ahead and read my statement again. I'm willing to bet that you read into it and not what was said.
You view the employee as basically a slave to the company, someone who should grovel at the feet of their great and noble benefactor in exchange for tossing them a few crusts and giving them something to keep them out of trouble during the day. The White Capitalist's Burden, more or less.
Less, actually, a lot less. But make no mistake, you are employed at the pleasure of the employer which means you are to do what they ask of you or consider ending that employment. I wouldn't expect you to go out and sweep the parking lot if you were a sales rep, but I would expect you to make sales, attempt to make sale, and do insignificant other things around the office when you are doing neither if asked.
Now, make no mistake, I feel appreciative that I have a decent job in this economy, but also make no mistake,I command respect by virtue of the skills I bring to the table. Any second rate qwiky-mart can give me a paycheck. Not everyone can make a wide range of largely incompatible computer systems play well with each other.
Either you are not as good as you think you are, or you are being paid a lot more then a qwiky-mart employee which kind of negates the comparison. I suspect the later as indicated in your statement. That being said, you are still a servant to your master unless you are asked to do something that causes you to find a new one. If that means not being rude in meetings, I do not see it as a difficult thing to do. I speak with several people daily that I have absolutely no respect for and I do so respectfully only because not being rude makes the entire environment better. And believe me, some of the idiots I end up being around make a Dilbert cartoon look like mensa meeting.
When I said that respecting other peoples' time works both ways - I meant that. At the end of the day, yes, I need a paycheck, and Mr. Shirt can provide that to me. And while we may play the game of observing existing the existing corporate hierarchy on a day to day basis, put bluntly, Mr. Shirt needs me far more than I need him.
If that makes you want to get H1Bs... Good luck with that. I've worked at a company that loaded up with H1Bs, and trust me, you get what you pay for
I think it is already apparent that it has made quite a few PHBs look for H1Bs. Every H1B I have met has been paid the same as everyone they work with too. Now maybe that scale is too low to start with, or maybe it is what the market calls for, I couldn't say, I'm not in a position to hire them. But as a requirement, they are supposed to be making the same pay in order for the sponsorship to be legit. I am aware that enforcement of this seems to be lacking.
I do know that especially in the tech fields, they seem to be preferred over citizens which is why you see pushes to increase the amount of visas. This is despite study after study showing that H1Bs are no better talented then their American counterparts who cannot find jobs. Here is an interesting article that displays this
Slashdot Mirror
10% or more of your yearly income is not a reasonable price. That is what the highest level of income the subsidies are supposed to compensate to if you qualify for them. Except that you won't get subsidies working independently because your income will reflect a lot more than just wages being your own business.
The way the law is written, any employer portion of coverage is not taxed to the employee. Or to put it more simple, the employer's contributions to health coverage does not count as income unless you are the employer then all your expense is considered income. Now, if that portion or any qualified health care expense exceeds either 7.5% or 14% of your income, then the portion in excess can be deducted but you have to itemize which may reduce other benefits as well.
Power is the total amount of energy available commonly expressed in watts or joules, sometimes horsepower when not specific to electrical current where as volts is part of the measurement used to calculate power when dealing with electrical currents. Amps is the second component of power in which you multiple the amps by the voltage to get the power in watts.
I don't know if you were playing on the mistakes and I ruined it for you or if you didn't catch the issue (it took me a minute to see it). I hope I didn't stop you from doing the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.
The problem with your position is that when people kill themselves through drugs, they often take others with them. Cough medicine actually has another purpose so the risks are weighed.
None of the scenarios I mentioned are not out of the norm as they have been behind high profile or major fatality accidents within the past 10-20 years or so. In Chicago alone, 2 train derailments have been linked to high blood levels of Marijuana and one had crystal meth in his system in the 90's when he parked a truck on a RR crossing. The Good Will building that just collapsed about a year ago was because of a mistake a crane operator made while working on a building next door- who BTW, had a high blood concentration of Marijuana.
More people are killed or suffer serious health issues every year from motor vehicle accidents than from Transfats yet we seek to outlaw transfats.
Please explain this logic a little better for me. I am particulsrly stuck on the connection between already paying or already subsidizing the uninsure and the massive increases in costs because we are sybsidizing people who don't have insurance.
It seems to me that x+1 would be the same as 1+x and U*P is the same as P*U. That is after all what you are saying with the already subsidizing line. And this isn't even getting to the logic of spreading those subsidies out over more people should reduce the cost to any one person when it is spread between more people. It is as if thr average of 2+2 is now 6 or something.
So yes, i need some explaination to why basic math fails that line of reasoning. If we are already subdidising then, then subsidising them should be about the same.
No shit. I mean i always smoke pot while driving an 18 wheeler down the intrrstate at 70mph. I find the tunnelvision helps me concentrate on the dotted lines. My brother is a crane operater and says getting stoned calms his nerves when placing 6000 pound steel beams right next to a couple workers 25 stories in the air.
I often take meth while driving too, but sometimes have to tone it down with some wild turkey. Its my body, i should be able to do whatever i want to it right. . Oh i gotta go, that heroin adict is at the door and if i don:'t watch her like a hawk, things disapear.
Judging from your grammar, i can understand your misgivings. But science in america us mostly about national interest now.
If that was the case, then the amounts of increase would reflect ther per student value of chsnge adjusted for inflation. That doesn't seem to be the case though.
But the gp was correct, most people are claiming their high tuition cost are also counting room and board. Unfortunately, most schools require you to live on campus for at least the freshman year. And then there is the problem of not having campuses in every town making staying away from home a neccesity for some. So including housing costs is not entirely dishonest.
It might be if anyone's house had been damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Of course you are guessing on the 70 million years too. It could be 20 or 70 years, we have no way of knowing. But i bet california might have rather had several small quakes that the big on in the 90's. And yes, that is a guess too.
Lol.. you mean in the land of junior getting expelled because the way he ate a pop tart left the food looking like a gun? Or a land where people think it is just that veterins face arrest in order to see open air memorials built to honor the sacrifice they and their generation made, to honor the bravery they were forced to summon under threat of death or worse while illegal immigrants protest in the same area over not being given citizenship rights and having their illegal status abolished?
The brave are still here. They just care about different things and are being pushed to the sidelines. The new brave replacing them step outside of conformity all the time, except they end up being branded terrorist for coloring outside the lines and have their crayon promptly confiscated until they can be good little liberals.
And of course logging in to post would have solved the chances of anyone pretending to be someone else or you thinking it too.
SLashdot has seen a lot of poor form recently.
Looks like we are in agreement. I must have misread your earlier reply. Still, it is harder to leave your family or school that it is you piano teacher's house.
And as for forming your own opinions, i know people in their 40s who haven't figured out how to eat with their mouth shut. Thats the way they were raised and don't understand how irritating, gross, and downright anoying it is to see the food in their mouth tumble between their teeth with specs flying out and back onto their plate while the comping and lips smaking makes you want to punch them or something.
(Note, i.can't stand to hear someone eat. Won't even go to restaurants unless i know the background music is loud enough to cover the noise of others. And if it isn't, i find a reason to excuse myself and will eat in the car instead. )
The article suggests an undocumented fault line and the CO2 is lubricating it allowing nature to work its course sooner rather that later.
If that is the case, i would think this actually lessens the probability of a catasrophic earthquakein the future due to stress being relieved over time in smaller amounts instead of one large event. But i'M only guessing.
My understanding is that reseting the passwords resulted in default config files which made it impracticle to do becsuse there was no know copies of the working configs.
To stick with the truck analogy, after they got the keys, they needed to rebuild the motors to return to normal.
The drug testing laws have been upheld in court many times. I'm actualy subject to random tests due to my job and i have looked into this for wuite a while.
Also, the courts have said that federal bans on pot use supercede state laws.whether it is constitutional or not, the courts are allowing prosecution and conviction.
Quite true which is why i attempted to add authority. If you attemp to intimidate me into doing something, i can leave, i can tell an authority figutre. If i can't leave or you are the authority figure, i have no choice but to accept it. That is somewhat how brain washing occures in situations like with stockholm syndrome. But more pointedly, if im supposed to learn from you, how do i know it is wrong or not just the way things are?
Ehh.. It depends on what suburban you have. The 2500 in 2 or 4 wheel drive over the last few years have a cargo capacity of around 2100lbs which is within a couple hundred pounds of 10,000 kg. transporting it across country would be more along the lines of 70 cents per mile at 5 miles per gallon of fuel and fuel costing $3.50 per gallon plus normal wear and tear. It might be cheaper having it transported on the back of a truck. Size and weight would likely be around 30-50 cents per miles as part of a consolidated shipment with no additional wear and tear on the vehicle.
the rest of what you mention sounds pretty straight forward. It's just that some suburbans are actually built like trucks and can handle some weight.
Nah, never happen. Federal law allows drug screening and it will supersede state law. In fact, federal law requires drug screening for certain jobs and pot is one of the tier 1 drugs specifically outlawed.
Also, federal law allows an out for workers compensation and liability claims if the person is impaired by drugs or alcohol. The problem with pot screening is that it stays in your system without having a detrimental effect on yourself. You cannot currently screen someone to determine if they are under the influence of pot so any amounts in your system over a very small amount is considered a positive.
The issue isn't if you smoked pot, it is if you are under the influence of it at work or while performing a specific safety sensitive job function. Because of the limitations of the screening, it is treated similar to alcohol and any amounts in your system is considered to be influencing you.
How about a mother and son marrying? Father and daughter?
I think one of the problems with sibling marriages is that one sibling generally ends up in a position of power or authority over the other which is along the lines of why high school teachers aren't allows to date their students.
No, he couldn't. It would take an act of congress to allow him to do so. The president cannot unilaterally make international agreements or rescind them unless they are executive agreements which congress may or may not honor or obstruct. There would have to be a law or a grant from congress allowing the president to give up property in order for him to dispose of Guantanamo.
It may work differently in other countries, but the reality of the situation is that the President of the United States is pretty much powerless on his own. Most of everything he does needs congress behind it. Good leaders usually have no problems with that which might have created an illusion of more independent power misleading our perception in the past. He can create policy in how the executive functions, but he cannot dispose of property or treaties or the likes without congress being involved. The best he could do is order Guantanamo to be evacuated and abandoned but the US would still retain rights to it.
You are working overtime to draw lines that simple are not there. If you directed just a portion of all that energy into something actually real, I'm betting you could change the world for the better. But until then, you are only tilting at windmills that aren't even there outside of your mind.
Are you dense? Of course his mother meets that criteria. The next onus would be the retention period you originally pointed to in which Barack would have to be in the counrty for 5 consecutive years between the age of 14 and 28 with entering the country no later then his 23rd birthday or his citizenship is revoked. His books show that wasn't the case but by all means, ignore everything pertinent and think there is a problem with other people.
What makes you think I think anything about it? I have already said I'm not a birther but I can understand why some of them think that way. So he was in Hawaii and going to school there at age 9. He would have been 14 on august 4th 1975. If he left the US after 1979, he would have only met 4 of his 5 year retention period assuming he left after his birth date. There is contention among birthers who seem to think after high school, he went with his mother back to Indonesia for a period of time before returning to the US that would have broken the entire consecutive part of the 5 consecutive years.
Perhaps reading comprehension is not one of your strong points. I can understand that, you appear to be an Obama supporter. The 1952 immigration law specifically said citizenship would be removed if he did not meet a set of criteria due to the nature of one parent being a citizen and born outside the US if that was true. That criteria was to be living inside the US for 5 consecutive years between the age of 14 and 28 with it being necessary to enter the country for this retention period before his 23rd birthday. If that was not met, according to law, his citizenship would have been removed by law.
All this crap is completely available on the internet. The fact that I have to spoon feed it to you because you are either too ignorant to look it up, or too lazy to investigate what your opposition is claiming has absolutely no reflection on my beliefs other then I choose not to be an idiot repeating crap about things I know nothing about. You might enjoy running through life failing to understand the people around you and just shrugging it off as you being special or something but I can't.
Obama was born in Hawaii just like his birth certificate said. I never questioned that at all, but I did question why he held it back, spent millions of dollars fighting it's release in court, and finally after everyone who does suspect his citizenship had amassed craploadss of evidence to the contrary like interviews with his grandmother on his father's side who seems to think she was at his birth in Kenya and held him moments after he was born and his wife slipping up and claiming he was born in kenya, he releases it. The simple thing to do would have been to simple say, here, it proves I was born in Hawaii and my mother was a citizen so I am too, now shut up and get over it. But he didn't. He went through great pains- actually obstructing efforts to determine the truth, in order to keep the birther movement alive. and that was my entire point, Obama could have ended that before it even grew fangs but instead he purposely attempted to keep it around for whatever reason he saw an advantage with. Now, if the Obamacare is sabotaged, you can believe it would be by the administration for some purpose we will never know.
Look dude, first of all, I'm not and never was a birther so I do not know what was and what was not acceptable. A news paper clipping is a third party but it is not an official state documentation that could have ended all questions at the time. The newspaper only said Mr and MS, Barack H. Obama of some address has a son. It didn't say the son was Barack or that the birth happened at a specific hospital or place.
And the percentage page you linked to ignores the section right below it that places requirements for lengths of time the parent had to previously been in the US in order for the citizenship to occur. They were right in front of you too which either tells me you completely ignored them or you attempted to conceal them in order to present something that wasn't.
According to Obama's own books, if he wasn't born in US territories, because of a single parent citizenship, his own citizenship is ambiguous as not only is there a resident requirement for his mother, but the 1952 immigration and nationality act specified his retention period as being for five years between the ages of 14 and 28 and he had to enter the US for the five consecutive years before his 23rd birthday. This is something else his books do not help him with. Speaking of his books not helping, his publisher ever printed a brochure claiming he was Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii which lasted from 91 through several revisions until after he took office.
And the problem was, if Obama was not born in US territory, he wasn't a citizen at birth unless he went to the US and remained in the US for a period of time and at the appropriate times which his own books show didn't happen. Furthermore, I have trouble assuming he is a natural born citizen when his citizenship could have been stripped from him.
Yes, Hillary or her supporters couldn't stand the idea of Obama becoming president. That after all is where the question of his legitimacy came from- along with John McCain's legitimacy.
But once the convincing argument was raised, can you blame others for demanding it to be resolved? McCain had absolutely no problem resolving his. Obama had a secrete panel vouch for his credentials as everything was locked out to the general public and we had to take the word of people who supported him as the only proof initially offered. The constitutional qualifications for being president is actually something some people find important just like other provisions in the constitution, some of which are due process of law, restrictions on search and seizures, free speech, the abolition of slavery and the protections against racial discrimination and many more.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue. I never said the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was not supported by republicans. I said it was passed under Clinton which is not Bush as the op suggested with his claim on the SEC.
Go ahead and read my statement again. I'm willing to bet that you read into it and not what was said.
Less, actually, a lot less. But make no mistake, you are employed at the pleasure of the employer which means you are to do what they ask of you or consider ending that employment. I wouldn't expect you to go out and sweep the parking lot if you were a sales rep, but I would expect you to make sales, attempt to make sale, and do insignificant other things around the office when you are doing neither if asked.
Either you are not as good as you think you are, or you are being paid a lot more then a qwiky-mart employee which kind of negates the comparison. I suspect the later as indicated in your statement. That being said, you are still a servant to your master unless you are asked to do something that causes you to find a new one. If that means not being rude in meetings, I do not see it as a difficult thing to do. I speak with several people daily that I have absolutely no respect for and I do so respectfully only because not being rude makes the entire environment better. And believe me, some of the idiots I end up being around make a Dilbert cartoon look like mensa meeting.
I think it is already apparent that it has made quite a few PHBs look for H1Bs. Every H1B I have met has been paid the same as everyone they work with too. Now maybe that scale is too low to start with, or maybe it is what the market calls for, I couldn't say, I'm not in a position to hire them. But as a requirement, they are supposed to be making the same pay in order for the sponsorship to be legit. I am aware that enforcement of this seems to be lacking.
I do know that especially in the tech fields, they seem to be preferred over citizens which is why you see pushes to increase the amount of visas. This is despite study after study showing that H1Bs are no better talented then their American counterparts who cannot find jobs. Here is an interesting article that displays this
http://slashdot.org/story/13/02/19/2157258/large-corporations-displacing-aging-it-workers-with-h-1b-visa-workers