If you were actually the sovereign, that might work. However, the idea of the government being subjects of the people are long dead. They died in the progresive pushes to get government to do more than it was intended to do. You sre now a subject of the government and you sre under their control.
If the company is paying you, it cannot be wasted time as it is their time. Keeping you desk tidy and leaving your office for lunch break can be a waste too. It can be unproductive to a certain task but never a waste unless the people paying think so.
Also, i don't see how it can be rude for your employer to expect you at meetings you don't think you neef to be at. You are on their time not yours and obviously not in charge. Perhaps that might change if you became more of a team player. Perhaps you would be better off working somewhere else.
Maybe the workforce simply isn't as professional as it used to be. That might be the attractiveness of the visa employees and offshoring that has been plaguing the industry for a decade or better.
It reminds me of a web developer i once employed. He refused to answer the phone, demanded to be text'd, and told one of my techs that "your lack of planning doesn't constitute his emergency". It did constitute his being fired the same day. I explained that i didn't hire him for his benefit, he simply agreed to work for it. When that benefit was removed, it was only logical to remove him. His replacement brought so much more value that we ended up increasing his pay the first month out.
Perhaps you would be better off finding another job. I'm willing to bet that emails or memos have proven not to work in the past hence the need to stop productivity and make something clear.
Whether that is true or not, if you think your boss orcpmpany is rude for trying to make something clear, you are probably working at the wrong place.
Texting and msking calls shows you are paying attention to something other than the meeting and/or the contents of the meeting. Most people would consider that rude.
Well, i don't disagree with your assesment but by stronger, i didn't mean as a nation on the whole. Their defense from the US or Russia or any other country will be aided by china and they ( at least in the past) can usually get concessions of some sort by shaking things up.
I agree that if the threat of the US disapeared, china might just get rid of k itself, but this shows how they are stronger with conflict. Without it, they stand a good chance of becoming china.
Nah. Syria was having problems secuting the sites from the rebels so this id likely more of a freed up troops are more valuable thing.
Syria doesn't need chemical weapons like iraq did or even N.Korea. Russia has pretty much dhown they are willing to either defend syria or supply it with anything it might be lacking in irs defense. N.K. in the otherhad has very large neighbors who only seem willing to defend them because they don't want whoever will replace them right next door.
In other words, china doesn't.want the US or Russia to occupie n.k. this is why they got involed the first time. So N.K. is in a unique position where they become stronger by inviting conflict and having China play big brother. Syria has a solid commitment from Russia due to Russia having a warm water naval port in their land.
As far as i know, Israel only bombs syria when it appears that arms are moving to terrorist factions hell bent on attacking Israel. I don't neccesarily agree wiyh the idea that all arms are going to hezbolah but the missiles destroyed in the attack you cited could be used to prevent israel ftom stopping arms going to hezbolah. It definatly is different then you tried to present it which might be why the west propaganda machine baffles you.
Obviously, this happens somewhat a lot. All we need to do is look at the credit card skimmers that get installed on gas pumps and ATM machines. They may not even need a knowing insider either. But it already happens
Here is a hint, neither do cell phones which i was talking about.
I guess since you missed the point, i will have to spell it out. It doesn't matter if you are using the devices or not at the time of citation. If you look like you are using them, or that you are distracted by them, the cop can issue a citation and you go to court and explain his mistake. A cop can go by what he understands the situaton to be and of course everyone is innocent which it why there is court (if it isn't corupted)
Defend her all you want. The comment was made because the republicans were trying to delay the votes and wanted the bills read on the floor to do so. Regardless of what you claim the reason was, it was in responce to that and to force a vote.
So how many of those lies have been found to be true? If you look, there are less of them that remain untrue then promises by the president over this that still remain true.
Please explain this concept a bit more. Is junk science all which chalenges your sacrrd cows? It sounds like maybe you shouldn't trod the sacred cows out making claims about them if you cannot tollorate someone questioning if the creature is evrn bovine at all.
If the science is junk, it will show . Don't be afraid.
I'm not sure why you think pointing out that the republicans rejected the plan already and that conservatives, a good portion of which stayed home rather than vote fot romney, who actually know the difference between state's rights, would matter in thid conversation.
But to claim commity discusion and conference discusion was plenty of discusion when Reid said we don't know what is in the bill, it would take three days and three lawyers to figure it out and pelosi's famous you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill, is completely absurd.
We already directly provide healthcare. Local health departments and VA services do yhis already. Hodpitals are required to do a percentage of profits in charity work already in order to maintain a non profit tax status.
The PPACA was already passed on a party line vote with little discusion on it. I dismiss the idea of political viability out of hand unless you intend it to mean democrats worried more about ideology then worlking solution that were contentious intrudion on the public.
But biologist should accept money to test evolution even if it does lead to it being nonesense. They should take money to determine if germ theory is understod incorectly.
You see, when science stops becoming testable and repeatable, we either learn something new or it stops being science. If science cannot stand to scrutiny, it is not good science.
You see what is hapening here, you are against the scientific method because it might challenge some of your sacred cows.
Obama was trying to sell insurance instead of telling the experts to figure out a way to provide access to healthcare. FTFY.
You don't neccesarily need insurance to have healthcare. You do not need to foot the bill for those who can afford insurance on their own. Over 85% of the population already had insurance so all that was needed was a few tweaks to existing plans like no lifetime limits and make sure those 15% remaining have access when they need it.
My guess would be that someone senses there will be carear ending fallout over this happening to heads of state and wanted to ensure they weren't the patsi.
Or maybe they have an alegence to country and not ghd people running it? All i can do is guesd.
It doesn't matter what they think or how smart or idiotic you think they are, the science will speak for itself. Either it will support current theory or it will find issues with it and in the end, we will have a much more complete understanding of something.
Its like all the sudden, people are threatened that actual science might happen. You say it is because they are idiots, but from my perspective, it seems as if you are threatened by those idiots wanting science done somehow. As long as the scientists doing the science are honest in their work or honest about their work being manipulated, the outcome will be nothing less then the science speaking for itself.
If there is no cure, then what difference will more science make? I mean what problem do you foresee that would cause you to want to prevent science from happening or possible existing science challenged?
If the science happens, then we have one of several outcomes. It either A: strengthens the current understanding and positions, B: weakens it, C:, does both and shows we need to do more science in order to truly understand what we think we understand.
There are more possible outcomes then that. I personally see A happening even though I don't agree with the political fixes being slopped around. Of course we could be wrong on the connections to AGW and understanding the cyclical influences could point to better crop management which would help mitigate any increased weather phenomenon from AGW whether it exists or not. Knowing that the 100 year flood is due within the next 10 years can be a life saver to some degree but it could also predict crop failure and allow proper planning for it. Recently, we have discovered atmospheric patterns that could predict heat waves in the eastern two thirds of the US up to three weeks in advance. What if the science was never done on that because AGW deniers might benefit from it? This could save lives.
Socialist in American politics is a hold over from the socialist workers party who was behind much of Roosevelt's New deal legislation that actually was purposed years before in the 1900's. The biggest part of the opposition to it stems from the first red scare where the communist part attempted a coup and expected the socialist workers party to join in but they didn't. This was circa 1919. The US government deported all the foreign entities involved with the communist party's attempted coup and the remaining abandoned the party for the socialist workers party or went underground or both. This was exacerbated after WWII when a lot of the philosophic communist joined the socialist parties around the world because of the stigma the war and its successor the cold war created over communism.
Government health care and/or government mandated health insurance has been a topic of the socialist workers party since then also. The AMA and all the groups who now support it that was around in the early 1920's, at the time were against it.
You are right in that socialist is used mainly as a pejorative in modern times. It means anything from the government taking and giving to others to government controlling you beyond what is clearly and plainly spelled out in the constitution.
It couldn't happen. The president still controls the military, the states still have their guard and even though those pesky tea party conservatives hate obama, a coup is most likely one thing that would bring them rushing to his defense- armed and ready to defend the US and the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were actually the sovereign, that might work. However, the idea of the government being subjects of the people are long dead. They died in the progresive pushes to get government to do more than it was intended to do. You sre now a subject of the government and you sre under their control.
Nah, the end plan of the tea party is to restore a constitutional role of government and return the bulk of the power to the states and the people.
It isn't hard to find that position being stated among most of the tea party organizations.
If the company is paying you, it cannot be wasted time as it is their time. Keeping you desk tidy and leaving your office for lunch break can be a waste too. It can be unproductive to a certain task but never a waste unless the people paying think so.
Also, i don't see how it can be rude for your employer to expect you at meetings you don't think you neef to be at. You are on their time not yours and obviously not in charge. Perhaps that might change if you became more of a team player. Perhaps you would be better off working somewhere else.
Maybe the workforce simply isn't as professional as it used to be. That might be the attractiveness of the visa employees and offshoring that has been plaguing the industry for a decade or better.
It reminds me of a web developer i once employed. He refused to answer the phone, demanded to be text'd, and told one of my techs that "your lack of planning doesn't constitute his emergency". It did constitute his being fired the same day. I explained that i didn't hire him for his benefit, he simply agreed to work for it. When that benefit was removed, it was only logical to remove him. His replacement brought so much more value that we ended up increasing his pay the first month out.
I wrote that on my phone while doing 70 down the freeway. I wasn't driving but be glad there wasn't more grammar problems.
Perhaps you would be better off finding another job. I'm willing to bet that emails or memos have proven not to work in the past hence the need to stop productivity and make something clear.
Whether that is true or not, if you think your boss orcpmpany is rude for trying to make something clear, you are probably working at the wrong place.
Texting and msking calls shows you are paying attention to something other than the meeting and/or the contents of the meeting. Most people would consider that rude.
Well, i don't disagree with your assesment but by stronger, i didn't mean as a nation on the whole. Their defense from the US or Russia or any other country will be aided by china and they ( at least in the past) can usually get concessions of some sort by shaking things up.
I agree that if the threat of the US disapeared, china might just get rid of k itself, but this shows how they are stronger with conflict. Without it, they stand a good chance of becoming china.
Nah. Syria was having problems secuting the sites from the rebels so this id likely more of a freed up troops are more valuable thing.
Syria doesn't need chemical weapons like iraq did or even N.Korea. Russia has pretty much dhown they are willing to either defend syria or supply it with anything it might be lacking in irs defense. N.K. in the otherhad has very large neighbors who only seem willing to defend them because they don't want whoever will replace them right next door.
In other words, china doesn't.want the US or Russia to occupie n.k. this is why they got involed the first time. So N.K. is in a unique position where they become stronger by inviting conflict and having China play big brother. Syria has a solid commitment from Russia due to Russia having a warm water naval port in their land.
As far as i know, Israel only bombs syria when it appears that arms are moving to terrorist factions hell bent on attacking Israel. I don't neccesarily agree wiyh the idea that all arms are going to hezbolah but the missiles destroyed in the attack you cited could be used to prevent israel ftom stopping arms going to hezbolah. It definatly is different then you tried to present it which might be why the west propaganda machine baffles you.
Obviously, this happens somewhat a lot. All we need to do is look at the credit card skimmers that get installed on gas pumps and ATM machines. They may not even need a knowing insider either. But it already happens
Here is a hint, neither do cell phones which i was talking about.
I guess since you missed the point, i will have to spell it out. It doesn't matter if you are using the devices or not at the time of citation. If you look like you are using them, or that you are distracted by them, the cop can issue a citation and you go to court and explain his mistake. A cop can go by what he understands the situaton to be and of course everyone is innocent which it why there is court (if it isn't corupted)
You prolly would if you had it in your hands or to your ear- even if you weren't talking or texting on it.
Distracted driving is the big thing now
Defend her all you want. The comment was made because the republicans were trying to delay the votes and wanted the bills read on the floor to do so. Regardless of what you claim the reason was, it was in responce to that and to force a vote.
So how many of those lies have been found to be true? If you look, there are less of them that remain untrue then promises by the president over this that still remain true.
Please explain this concept a bit more. Is junk science all which chalenges your sacrrd cows? It sounds like maybe you shouldn't trod the sacred cows out making claims about them if you cannot tollorate someone questioning if the creature is evrn bovine at all.
If the science is junk, it will show . Don't be afraid.
Nice one.
I'm not sure why you think pointing out that the republicans rejected the plan already and that conservatives, a good portion of which stayed home rather than vote fot romney, who actually know the difference between state's rights, would matter in thid conversation.
But to claim commity discusion and conference discusion was plenty of discusion when Reid said we don't know what is in the bill, it would take three days and three lawyers to figure it out and pelosi's famous you have to pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill, is completely absurd.
We already directly provide healthcare. Local health departments and VA services do yhis already. Hodpitals are required to do a percentage of profits in charity work already in order to maintain a non profit tax status.
The PPACA was already passed on a party line vote with little discusion on it. I dismiss the idea of political viability out of hand unless you intend it to mean democrats worried more about ideology then worlking solution that were contentious intrudion on the public.
But biologist should accept money to test evolution even if it does lead to it being nonesense. They should take money to determine if germ theory is understod incorectly.
You see, when science stops becoming testable and repeatable, we either learn something new or it stops being science. If science cannot stand to scrutiny, it is not good science.
You see what is hapening here, you are against the scientific method because it might challenge some of your sacred cows.
Obama was trying to sell insurance instead of telling the experts to figure out a way to provide access to healthcare.
FTFY.
You don't neccesarily need insurance to have healthcare. You do not need to foot the bill for those who can afford insurance on their own. Over 85% of the population already had insurance so all that was needed was a few tweaks to existing plans like no lifetime limits and make sure those 15% remaining have access when they need it.
This entire ordeal could have been simpler.
My guess would be that someone senses there will be carear ending fallout over this happening to heads of state and wanted to ensure they weren't the patsi.
Or maybe they have an alegence to country and not ghd people running it? All i can do is guesd.
It doesn't matter what they think or how smart or idiotic you think they are, the science will speak for itself. Either it will support current theory or it will find issues with it and in the end, we will have a much more complete understanding of something.
Its like all the sudden, people are threatened that actual science might happen. You say it is because they are idiots, but from my perspective, it seems as if you are threatened by those idiots wanting science done somehow. As long as the scientists doing the science are honest in their work or honest about their work being manipulated, the outcome will be nothing less then the science speaking for itself.
You can fix stupid. Generally it takes time and understand and you looking in the mirror often. Often enough, the problem with stupid starts within.
If there is no cure, then what difference will more science make? I mean what problem do you foresee that would cause you to want to prevent science from happening or possible existing science challenged?
If the science happens, then we have one of several outcomes. It either A: strengthens the current understanding and positions, B: weakens it, C:, does both and shows we need to do more science in order to truly understand what we think we understand.
There are more possible outcomes then that. I personally see A happening even though I don't agree with the political fixes being slopped around. Of course we could be wrong on the connections to AGW and understanding the cyclical influences could point to better crop management which would help mitigate any increased weather phenomenon from AGW whether it exists or not. Knowing that the 100 year flood is due within the next 10 years can be a life saver to some degree but it could also predict crop failure and allow proper planning for it. Recently, we have discovered atmospheric patterns that could predict heat waves in the eastern two thirds of the US up to three weeks in advance. What if the science was never done on that because AGW deniers might benefit from it? This could save lives.
Socialist in American politics is a hold over from the socialist workers party who was behind much of Roosevelt's New deal legislation that actually was purposed years before in the 1900's. The biggest part of the opposition to it stems from the first red scare where the communist part attempted a coup and expected the socialist workers party to join in but they didn't. This was circa 1919. The US government deported all the foreign entities involved with the communist party's attempted coup and the remaining abandoned the party for the socialist workers party or went underground or both. This was exacerbated after WWII when a lot of the philosophic communist joined the socialist parties around the world because of the stigma the war and its successor the cold war created over communism.
Government health care and/or government mandated health insurance has been a topic of the socialist workers party since then also. The AMA and all the groups who now support it that was around in the early 1920's, at the time were against it.
You are right in that socialist is used mainly as a pejorative in modern times. It means anything from the government taking and giving to others to government controlling you beyond what is clearly and plainly spelled out in the constitution.
It couldn't happen. The president still controls the military, the states still have their guard and even though those pesky tea party conservatives hate obama, a coup is most likely one thing that would bring them rushing to his defense- armed and ready to defend the US and the Constitution.