Yes, I was referring to the the school segregation case.
What reasons do you have in mind? (I'd like to note I listed none myself beyond a vague sort of analogy.) I also seriously doubt marriage equality will take as long as you suspect in the US, unless you're quite old (I am not).
There are too many people within the US who think creationism is real. There are even more people who think God is real. And there are a lot of people who see this as a separate right as apposed to an equal right. Most of these people might be older but as the younger crowd grows older they tend to change their minds too. I know a lot of liberal hippies who in their youth protested the DNC, Nixon, participated in riots all across the country who are now quite conservatives claiming to be liberals but admit they vote republican or libertarian whenever possible.
The biggest reason I think it will take so long is that this is a state issue being attacked on a federal level and some people who do not even care if gays get married resent the federal government imposing conditions onto the states. We can look at recent politics and see this with the Obamacare legislation and how it is being rejected in some instances by people who would and do actually support a public medical care but do not like the mandates on the states or the federal government injecting themselves over what traditionally is a state right according to the 10th amendment. In short, they support the concept but not the implementation of it.
These types of situations will play out for quite a while in history and unless the supreme court gets stacked with political and ideological cronies, I think swaying public opinion and getting gay marriage will take a long time.
Well, it is a legitimate function of society to encourage family or population growth which can be done through it's laws like with some of the benefits of marriage.
However, tax breaks and advantages for having kids occur without regard to marital status so I think we might be past that point. I don't disagree with with what you posted other then government having a role in crafting it's laws to the benefit of society. It's sort of the purpose of government even if we do not agree with the end laws.
The interesting thing is the civil rights legislation that happened 3 years before that at the behest of yet another case based upon which race was an issue.
You may be right, but I do not think for the reasons you see. I also think time might be close to the end of or beyond both of our times.
Actually, I think you are confusing hereditary benefits and not marital benefits. It wasn't all that long ago that women could even own property. Starting in the 1800's or so, widows had a common law right to live in the home of their deceased spouse as long as they wanted until they died themselves.
Now, inherent in marriage are rights known as widower's rights that guarantee certain amounts of ownership in property and rights outside of that too. Entire last will and testament can be challenged and tossed out because widows did not receive enough of the estate according to law. But to that extend, automatic extensions of government benefits and other legal benefits are included with a marriage automatically. That started shortly after WWII. Marriage had been around a lot longer then that.
Your appeal to ignorance is not fascinating anyone here. Marriage is between a man and a women in almost every state and country in the world. In some of those areas, it is between two men or two women or perhaps even more also. To think that the concept of a man and women being stopped from marrying because of their race or ethnicity is equal to the same of gender is a bit ridiculous. The concept of opposite genders being needed for marriage goes way back in time that confusing two people who otherwise meet those definitions other then their race is simply not comparable or even close to the same as two men or two women not being able to be married.
I guess your failure is also in the concept of love. No marriage law that I know of (certainly not within the US) holds love as a requirement for marriage. Love has nothing to do with it. You will find people who marry who never even pretended to love each other.
Isn't this the argument that Brick and Mortal retailers are making against Amazon? That since Amazon doesn't pay sales tax in most states, they are at a disadvantage and either the federal or state governments should force them to pay sales taxes?
That is a failed argument they made at one time. I'm not sure if they are still trying to make it. Most brick and mortal establishments just opened their own website sales or affiliated with Amazon so they could sell in the same way. There are calls for internet sales taxes every so often but they do not go anywhere.
I said no such thing, I didn't say anything at all about religion because I don't think religion should have any place in lawmaking. Would you be happy with a law mandating that all businesses (including all non-religious oriented websites) should be closed on Sundays to respect the Christian religions that believe that no employee should have to work on the Sabbath and no one should be doing secular work on the Sabbath? And of course, businesses should also be closed on Saturdays to reflect the beliefs of Jewish and other religions that recognize Saturday as the Sabbath.,,
The topic at hand is what brought religion into it- some people are against gay marriage for religious reasons.
As for the rest of what you said, what on earth makes you think I would enjoy religions dominating the law? What you have said essentially says any company has a right to encourage laws requiring all Christians have to work on Sunday, all Jews they to work on Saturday, because they chose to do it with their employees and somehow see it as a disadvantage because other businesses have happier employees who do not make them work on those days.
This is only associated with religious notations insofar as some religions think having sex with the same sex is an abomination to their God and do not want it legally encouraged by their community and government. Your concept that a company can make choices then attempt to impose those choices onto others because it somehow sees itself at a disadvantage after making those choices is where the flaw is. Especially when it is about something that crosses into religious beliefs. You might as well have Google come out and say they hate Jews and Christians who follow the bible.
You know, I really dislike discussing issues with idiots like you. It's not a matter of your intelligence, rather how you hide it with what you presume is crass criticism of political ideology you dislike.
Reagan's tax cut actually raised taxes on the wealthy because the process of the tax cut eliminated loads of loopholes and shelters put in place by the democrats who controlled congress for decades before he became president. No longer could a doctor purchase a different luxury car for every day of the weak and claim it as a business expense. No longer could rich lawyers buy yachts claiming business expenses and second homes actually needed to be lived in with the requirement of only one second home counting for a mortgage deduction instead of all of them. There are tons of other loopholes closed.
Clinton's tax raise was actually a tax cut. All he did was raise the taxes on a small percentage of people who actually earned money from a job. He reduced the capitol gains tax in '96 to just 15% which the majority of the rich pay because the bulk of their income comes from investments rather then earnings from a job.
The so called fix to what you perceived as wrong from other presidents is a gimmick too. In 97 or 96 we had the ROTH IRAs and conversions created by Clinton (congress). This meant that a majority of people paid taxes on sheltered income that was supposed to be paid later when they retired during his administration. Some people even had the option to spread it out over 4 years, some paid it immediately. For these ROTH IRA programs, you had taxes paid up front instead of income being sheltered from taxes until retirement further increasing the tax revenue. The other portion was the artificial monetary flow from the Y2K scare. Enormous amounts of resources and money went into dealing with that which artificially inflated the economy at a time when the government by nature of the same, was able to increase productivity and save costs by the same upgrading. Those are 2 events that will not happen again (at least any time soon) and contributed heavily to the balanced budget Clinton ran. Evidence by this is the fact of 2001 fiscal year in which none of Bush's tax cuts or policy took effect and the surplus was gone.
But all that is all neither here nor there. Income taxes are not the only taxes in America and fees assigned by government offices are taxes too. The Federal Government is not the only entity that taxes in the US, states and municipalities within them also tax. Sales of items are taxes, sins are taxed, hell, in some area, groceries are even taxed. So stop thinking you are doing something with your political ramblings and lets be intellectually honest here.
Lol.. Taxes are not the lowest they have been in 60 years. Certain taxes are, but the fees and other taxes added together are not.
The problem isn't really taxes either. It's expecting too much from elected officials who traditionally have limited power. Most of what people expect from a federal government is more appropriately accomplished at a state level. This is somewhat obvious by the way many federal programs are implemented whereby they mandate states create the programs that comply with federal law and then pass money collected at the federal level to the states to be implemented within those programs. Food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, education, the vast majority of highway funding, all operate this way with only social security and parts of medicare actually having the federal government in control of the entire programs or program parts.
I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.
So it is the government's job to ensure all corporations have a fair competitive disposition? So if company A is located 2000 miles further away from the target market then company B but produce similar goods and services, should the government cover the costs of company A's transportation or raise the taxes on company B's products to remove unfair advantages locating your building near the target market might provide?
I mean seriously, you just argued that a company should be allowed to encourage the creation of a law that forces people- some against religious beliefs- to do something they have not done because their choice to do something puts them at a disadvantage to companies competing with them who have not decided to do it.
The difference between lobbying for something for their employees and something that benefits the company is as simple as the fiduciary duty imposed on it by law when it becomes a corporation and a publicly traded company. If Google can and does extend extra benefits to hire and retain certain employees, that is part of their fiduciary duty to the company. There is no fiduciary duty extended to the employee's wants and desires outside of their direct relationship with the company and this is a prime case where a misfeasance or even malfeasance lawsuit could be brought by the shareholders against the company itself.
And back to your unfair advantage, if Google's reason for extending those benefits is to keep and retain certain employees, then that is enough alone to compensate for any disadvantage another company might have. Google just needs to determine if the value of those employees or the employees siding with them are worth the extra costs associated with those benefits. If Google's reasons for the extension of those benefits is a personal political ideology, then see above about the fiduciary duty and wonder why you do not see more companies jumping in on politically divided issues like this.
Some do not see it as equal rights. They see it as extra rights. Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage. Two men or two women marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.
I don't know about the hate, but I will say that this is a divisive area and will create disdain with a portion of their user base. The country is about half split on the issue with alternatives to google popping up all the time.
This is a corporation getting involved in politics which seems to be the greatest evil that most people can agree on over the last 30 or more years. Of course some people will be shallow enough to excuse their favorite company getting into politics that do not directly involve their operation because it is something they want to support, but it doesn't change anything.
I guess the next question might be, what if Microsoft and GM decided to advocate the pro life argument and IBM all the sudden threw in support for teaching creation in schools. I'm assuming there would be differences in how that is viewed but in reality it is no different. These are just places that no corporation should be involved in- especially if they claim to do no evil which they are clearly participating in.
I do not think it matters as marriage has typically been of religious control. The state got involved because many were being excluded from marriage and it was more or less a power struggle between the ruling powers and religious authorities. Eventually, marriage carried legal ramifications when widowers rights, automatic transfer of ownerships and other legal benefits started being assigned automatically because of marital status.
In the debate on gay marriage, if those assigned legal rights were to be removed and separated- say applied for and consented to separately, the gay marriage debate would likely disappear. The big problem is mostly the mixing of religious born rituals with legal procedures.
Here is the problem with tax breaks, you will not see a high enough tax reduction in someone's paycheck to cover the costs of health insurance. If you wait until the end of the year for the refund, then you have an entire year of trying to pay for coverage before you get reimbursed.
Now, if someone can otherwise afford health insurance but doesn't buy it, they are the same people who will be able to pay for their medical services when needed. So outside a few people who might skip out on paying, or have an illness of such great depth that it drains their ability to pay, saying that wealthy uninsured people drive up other people's costs is a bit disingenuous.
Now, if they wanted to ensure everyone is covered, then a more proper way might be to raise everyone's taxes and give a medical card to the poor then allow a direct deduction from your taxes for the costs of the policy up to a certain amount.
One of the most infuriating parts of this is the penalty. If it is a tax that funds services and people who gain services outside the system can deduct those costs, it would sit better with a lot of people.
The government should not be in a position of assigning penalties without court oversight to any citizen because they failed to buy a certain product. This ruling essentially says that the government can require everyone to purchase a firearm from an American manufacturer or better yet, their cousin vinny's firearms emporium else face a penalty of $10,000 a year. The government can say ever man and women ages 18 to 35 has to serve at least 2 years active duty in the military as soon as they are finished with school else face a $65,000 tax penalty. The government can now say, if you do not buy an American made car or flute or whatever, you will have to pay a tax penalty. It is simply ridiculous that you would have to buy something or face a penalty simply for being born in the United State of America- the land of the free as the government allows you to be.
The problem is with the stated policy and reasons for posting the advertisements. If they treated posting differently then the stated policy, they would have to either change the policy ot explain why. In this case, they chose to explain why which turns out to be a crock of crap highlighting the vary essence of the problems with automated infringement systems and the corporate drones claiming ownership of everything.
I do not know if that would be a good idea here. Most the suspected bombs in my area are generally blown up as the way they diffuse them.
I guess they have a way of blowing explosives up where it destroys the device before it can detonate. I'm afraid of I was to call something like this in, they would blow my car up and the insurance wouldn't cover it.
You're a nobody. Why would any serious "Anonymous" user go after you? They already compromised a legit target who went after them, Aaron Barr and HBGary.
This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.
I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.
I also agree with the AC, if the ISPs log as much data as I do at several sites I admin, then catching any anonymous player would be a simple matter of access to the logs and the right datamining of the information contained within. So maybe the correct response might be that it sounds too much like a trap or something..
Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings
on
Facebook Forming a PAC
·
· Score: 1
Well, you call it greed and fear, I call it prudent. Maybe it's because I fall somewhere close to that line. But people generally learn with experience and it's that experience that makes them more wise as they get older.
As for privatizing Social Security, look at what happened to Lehman Brothers.
and? Just because they went under doesn't mean their customers lost anything. But even if they did, it's no different then Carter cutting social security payouts (set cost of living allowance increases below the rate of inflation having a negative benefit payment effect) in the middle of largest and fastest bought of inflation i have seen in my lifetime.
There is a reason why the inflation index does not include the cost of fuel or food- even when its long term.
Also the same people who are wanting to privatize are also want to deregulate.
Deregulate what? There are a lot of things that need to be deregulated. Deregulated does not mean no regulations, it means getting rid of the unproductive regulations. Sometimes that happens without problems, sometimes it does not. More problems are created by regulation BTW. If you do not believe me, just take a look at health care in the US and HMOs. Congress invented HMOs in 1968 in an attempt to control social security spending and has kept a heavy hand at regulating them ever since. But the democrat gem now is claimed to be the root of all evil in health care and reason to why they need to change everything in all their wisdom once again.
Even now there are people in congress who want to remove the regulations that were put in place after the crash
Regulation does not automagically mean better. Without you specifically mentioning what regulation you are referring to, I can only guess. But Bad regulation is more often then not, worse then no regulation. Do not confuse removing bad regulation with problems of no regulation.
And even with regulations in place, they still have to be enforced look as Madoff and Enron, regulations were in place but either never enforced or enforced after it was too late.
Enron and Madoff could not have been caught sooner. There is rumor that people complained to the SEC over Madoff but documented checks turned up nothing. You know why? Because they falsified their documentation and set out on a path of purposely defrauding people. Your statement has the tone of which you would like to stop a drunk driver from crashing into a family of 5 because the cops should have somehow stopped them sooner because there is regulation against being drunk in public and operating a motor vehicle while drunk. But here is the problem, if the drunk, or the next Madoff, or whomever, hide their illegal activity, you cannot do anything until such time that lie is exposed.
Hopefully, that exposure occurs before anyone is seriously hurt, and often it does, but sometimes it doesn't. When someone sets out to deceive and lie to people, you generally do not know until its too late and there is really no way or little way to know until someone has been harmed.
But this still has little to do with the privatization plans i have seen.
That's a pretty good soundbite. but doesn't match reality.
Medicaid has nothing to do with seniors, Its a state run ordeal that deals with the indigent. The cuts to medicare that I know of seem to be surrounding a means testing in which the rich seniors who wouldn't be dependent on medicare would have to pay for coverage, and I see nothing wrong with privatizing social security. It's not like there won't be rules on it that already are in place for anyone else involved in an existing retirement program outside of Social Security. In fact, there would probably be even more rules in place that would have largely negated any lasting impact of crashed like the recent one.
Are you talking about the Columbus Ohio city center mall? They used to bus people in from out of state to shop there, then it became all kids, there were some gang problems, and no one wanted to visit it. People who lived a few blocks from it would drive across town avoiding it to shop safely.
East land mall had much the same problems and is as you describe "an anchor store" but otherwise empty. Polaris and Tuttle malls kept the kid and gang problems down, but i haven't been to either in 8 or more years. I'm sure you could be talking about almost any city.
All county and local municipalities get their authority to tax from the state because they are a political subdivision. So if it is really necessary to collect sales tax for every state someone orders something from, then have the state set a default sales tax equal to the average of all the different sales taxes within the state and distribute the excess to it's own political subdivisions.
This might upset some communities who's sales tax is a lot more, but in reality, it would be an additional collection for them as it probably would never be reported or paid otherwise. In this case, they only need to worry about the State Internet sales tax of ~49 states plus the states they are operating from. The state then takes it's portion and forwards the rest to the municipalities within it's jurisdiction based on the other aspects of the mailing or billing address.
This complication, if it truly is necessary, really needs to be placed on the state and not the retailers when they are outside the state. And it will take an act of congress to make it happen.
One of the problems is that Gas Taxes aren't always spent on the roads. They go to rail systems and scenic bike paths that do not service any businesses, and in one case that i know of, they supplemented a local authority distributing HUD funding. Yes, they used the gas tax revenue allocated to the local municipality to buy HUD eligible homes to be rented out for just a bit more then the interest payments on the homes. The city will have a balloon payment to pay after 15 years. Once you figure maintenance into the costs, the city will lose money on it. but whoever sold them got more then the market price after it crashed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I was referring to the the school segregation case.
There are too many people within the US who think creationism is real. There are even more people who think God is real. And there are a lot of people who see this as a separate right as apposed to an equal right. Most of these people might be older but as the younger crowd grows older they tend to change their minds too. I know a lot of liberal hippies who in their youth protested the DNC, Nixon, participated in riots all across the country who are now quite conservatives claiming to be liberals but admit they vote republican or libertarian whenever possible.
The biggest reason I think it will take so long is that this is a state issue being attacked on a federal level and some people who do not even care if gays get married resent the federal government imposing conditions onto the states. We can look at recent politics and see this with the Obamacare legislation and how it is being rejected in some instances by people who would and do actually support a public medical care but do not like the mandates on the states or the federal government injecting themselves over what traditionally is a state right according to the 10th amendment. In short, they support the concept but not the implementation of it.
These types of situations will play out for quite a while in history and unless the supreme court gets stacked with political and ideological cronies, I think swaying public opinion and getting gay marriage will take a long time.
I'm sure they could. However, I'm not sure they are connected with mandriva in any substantive way
Well, it is a legitimate function of society to encourage family or population growth which can be done through it's laws like with some of the benefits of marriage.
However, tax breaks and advantages for having kids occur without regard to marital status so I think we might be past that point. I don't disagree with with what you posted other then government having a role in crafting it's laws to the benefit of society. It's sort of the purpose of government even if we do not agree with the end laws.
The interesting thing is the civil rights legislation that happened 3 years before that at the behest of yet another case based upon which race was an issue.
You may be right, but I do not think for the reasons you see. I also think time might be close to the end of or beyond both of our times.
Actually, I think you are confusing hereditary benefits and not marital benefits. It wasn't all that long ago that women could even own property. Starting in the 1800's or so, widows had a common law right to live in the home of their deceased spouse as long as they wanted until they died themselves.
Now, inherent in marriage are rights known as widower's rights that guarantee certain amounts of ownership in property and rights outside of that too. Entire last will and testament can be challenged and tossed out because widows did not receive enough of the estate according to law. But to that extend, automatic extensions of government benefits and other legal benefits are included with a marriage automatically. That started shortly after WWII. Marriage had been around a lot longer then that.
Your appeal to ignorance is not fascinating anyone here. Marriage is between a man and a women in almost every state and country in the world. In some of those areas, it is between two men or two women or perhaps even more also. To think that the concept of a man and women being stopped from marrying because of their race or ethnicity is equal to the same of gender is a bit ridiculous. The concept of opposite genders being needed for marriage goes way back in time that confusing two people who otherwise meet those definitions other then their race is simply not comparable or even close to the same as two men or two women not being able to be married.
I guess your failure is also in the concept of love. No marriage law that I know of (certainly not within the US) holds love as a requirement for marriage. Love has nothing to do with it. You will find people who marry who never even pretended to love each other.
That is a failed argument they made at one time. I'm not sure if they are still trying to make it. Most brick and mortal establishments just opened their own website sales or affiliated with Amazon so they could sell in the same way. There are calls for internet sales taxes every so often but they do not go anywhere.
The topic at hand is what brought religion into it- some people are against gay marriage for religious reasons.
As for the rest of what you said, what on earth makes you think I would enjoy religions dominating the law? What you have said essentially says any company has a right to encourage laws requiring all Christians have to work on Sunday, all Jews they to work on Saturday, because they chose to do it with their employees and somehow see it as a disadvantage because other businesses have happier employees who do not make them work on those days.
This is only associated with religious notations insofar as some religions think having sex with the same sex is an abomination to their God and do not want it legally encouraged by their community and government. Your concept that a company can make choices then attempt to impose those choices onto others because it somehow sees itself at a disadvantage after making those choices is where the flaw is. Especially when it is about something that crosses into religious beliefs. You might as well have Google come out and say they hate Jews and Christians who follow the bible.
You know, I really dislike discussing issues with idiots like you. It's not a matter of your intelligence, rather how you hide it with what you presume is crass criticism of political ideology you dislike.
Reagan's tax cut actually raised taxes on the wealthy because the process of the tax cut eliminated loads of loopholes and shelters put in place by the democrats who controlled congress for decades before he became president. No longer could a doctor purchase a different luxury car for every day of the weak and claim it as a business expense. No longer could rich lawyers buy yachts claiming business expenses and second homes actually needed to be lived in with the requirement of only one second home counting for a mortgage deduction instead of all of them. There are tons of other loopholes closed.
Clinton's tax raise was actually a tax cut. All he did was raise the taxes on a small percentage of people who actually earned money from a job. He reduced the capitol gains tax in '96 to just 15% which the majority of the rich pay because the bulk of their income comes from investments rather then earnings from a job.
The so called fix to what you perceived as wrong from other presidents is a gimmick too. In 97 or 96 we had the ROTH IRAs and conversions created by Clinton (congress). This meant that a majority of people paid taxes on sheltered income that was supposed to be paid later when they retired during his administration. Some people even had the option to spread it out over 4 years, some paid it immediately. For these ROTH IRA programs, you had taxes paid up front instead of income being sheltered from taxes until retirement further increasing the tax revenue. The other portion was the artificial monetary flow from the Y2K scare. Enormous amounts of resources and money went into dealing with that which artificially inflated the economy at a time when the government by nature of the same, was able to increase productivity and save costs by the same upgrading. Those are 2 events that will not happen again (at least any time soon) and contributed heavily to the balanced budget Clinton ran. Evidence by this is the fact of 2001 fiscal year in which none of Bush's tax cuts or policy took effect and the surplus was gone.
But all that is all neither here nor there. Income taxes are not the only taxes in America and fees assigned by government offices are taxes too. The Federal Government is not the only entity that taxes in the US, states and municipalities within them also tax. Sales of items are taxes, sins are taxed, hell, in some area, groceries are even taxed. So stop thinking you are doing something with your political ramblings and lets be intellectually honest here.
Lol.. Taxes are not the lowest they have been in 60 years. Certain taxes are, but the fees and other taxes added together are not.
The problem isn't really taxes either. It's expecting too much from elected officials who traditionally have limited power. Most of what people expect from a federal government is more appropriately accomplished at a state level. This is somewhat obvious by the way many federal programs are implemented whereby they mandate states create the programs that comply with federal law and then pass money collected at the federal level to the states to be implemented within those programs. Food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, education, the vast majority of highway funding, all operate this way with only social security and parts of medicare actually having the federal government in control of the entire programs or program parts.
I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.
So it is the government's job to ensure all corporations have a fair competitive disposition? So if company A is located 2000 miles further away from the target market then company B but produce similar goods and services, should the government cover the costs of company A's transportation or raise the taxes on company B's products to remove unfair advantages locating your building near the target market might provide?
I mean seriously, you just argued that a company should be allowed to encourage the creation of a law that forces people- some against religious beliefs- to do something they have not done because their choice to do something puts them at a disadvantage to companies competing with them who have not decided to do it.
The difference between lobbying for something for their employees and something that benefits the company is as simple as the fiduciary duty imposed on it by law when it becomes a corporation and a publicly traded company. If Google can and does extend extra benefits to hire and retain certain employees, that is part of their fiduciary duty to the company. There is no fiduciary duty extended to the employee's wants and desires outside of their direct relationship with the company and this is a prime case where a misfeasance or even malfeasance lawsuit could be brought by the shareholders against the company itself.
And back to your unfair advantage, if Google's reason for extending those benefits is to keep and retain certain employees, then that is enough alone to compensate for any disadvantage another company might have. Google just needs to determine if the value of those employees or the employees siding with them are worth the extra costs associated with those benefits. If Google's reasons for the extension of those benefits is a personal political ideology, then see above about the fiduciary duty and wonder why you do not see more companies jumping in on politically divided issues like this.
Some do not see it as equal rights. They see it as extra rights. Right now, everyone who is capable of making decisions for themselves has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex if they are capable of the same and agree to the marriage. Two men or two women marrying each other is extra to those rights and it's something they want to be included because of choices they made in their life and perceived benefits extended through law.
I don't know about the hate, but I will say that this is a divisive area and will create disdain with a portion of their user base. The country is about half split on the issue with alternatives to google popping up all the time.
This is a corporation getting involved in politics which seems to be the greatest evil that most people can agree on over the last 30 or more years. Of course some people will be shallow enough to excuse their favorite company getting into politics that do not directly involve their operation because it is something they want to support, but it doesn't change anything.
I guess the next question might be, what if Microsoft and GM decided to advocate the pro life argument and IBM all the sudden threw in support for teaching creation in schools. I'm assuming there would be differences in how that is viewed but in reality it is no different. These are just places that no corporation should be involved in- especially if they claim to do no evil which they are clearly participating in.
I do not think it matters as marriage has typically been of religious control. The state got involved because many were being excluded from marriage and it was more or less a power struggle between the ruling powers and religious authorities. Eventually, marriage carried legal ramifications when widowers rights, automatic transfer of ownerships and other legal benefits started being assigned automatically because of marital status.
In the debate on gay marriage, if those assigned legal rights were to be removed and separated- say applied for and consented to separately, the gay marriage debate would likely disappear. The big problem is mostly the mixing of religious born rituals with legal procedures.
Most of the criticism comes from all the hostility they receive when trying to figure out what it does.
Here is the problem with tax breaks, you will not see a high enough tax reduction in someone's paycheck to cover the costs of health insurance. If you wait until the end of the year for the refund, then you have an entire year of trying to pay for coverage before you get reimbursed.
Now, if someone can otherwise afford health insurance but doesn't buy it, they are the same people who will be able to pay for their medical services when needed. So outside a few people who might skip out on paying, or have an illness of such great depth that it drains their ability to pay, saying that wealthy uninsured people drive up other people's costs is a bit disingenuous.
Now, if they wanted to ensure everyone is covered, then a more proper way might be to raise everyone's taxes and give a medical card to the poor then allow a direct deduction from your taxes for the costs of the policy up to a certain amount.
One of the most infuriating parts of this is the penalty. If it is a tax that funds services and people who gain services outside the system can deduct those costs, it would sit better with a lot of people.
The government should not be in a position of assigning penalties without court oversight to any citizen because they failed to buy a certain product. This ruling essentially says that the government can require everyone to purchase a firearm from an American manufacturer or better yet, their cousin vinny's firearms emporium else face a penalty of $10,000 a year. The government can say ever man and women ages 18 to 35 has to serve at least 2 years active duty in the military as soon as they are finished with school else face a $65,000 tax penalty. The government can now say, if you do not buy an American made car or flute or whatever, you will have to pay a tax penalty. It is simply ridiculous that you would have to buy something or face a penalty simply for being born in the United State of America- the land of the free as the government allows you to be.
The problem is with the stated policy and reasons for posting the advertisements. If they treated posting differently then the stated policy, they would have to either change the policy ot explain why. In this case, they chose to explain why which turns out to be a crock of crap highlighting the vary essence of the problems with automated infringement systems and the corporate drones claiming ownership of everything.
I do not know if that would be a good idea here. Most the suspected bombs in my area are generally blown up as the way they diffuse them.
I guess they have a way of blowing explosives up where it destroys the device before it can detonate. I'm afraid of I was to call something like this in, they would blow my car up and the insurance wouldn't cover it.
This is a bit like I could lift that car over my head, but I see no reason to do it so you will just have to trust me when I say I can do it.
I agree that the best use of resources would probably be ignoring this person, but seriously, answering a challenge with "your not worth it" casts more doubt then confidence in the abilities to complete the challenge.
I also agree with the AC, if the ISPs log as much data as I do at several sites I admin, then catching any anonymous player would be a simple matter of access to the logs and the right datamining of the information contained within. So maybe the correct response might be that it sounds too much like a trap or something..
Well, you call it greed and fear, I call it prudent. Maybe it's because I fall somewhere close to that line. But people generally learn with experience and it's that experience that makes them more wise as they get older.
I does appear that medicaid is in the business of seniors now.
https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2038/~/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-and-medicaid%3F
Last i had to deal with either, medicaid shove you onto medicare when you turned into a senior.
and? Just because they went under doesn't mean their customers lost anything. But even if they did, it's no different then Carter cutting social security payouts (set cost of living allowance increases below the rate of inflation having a negative benefit payment effect) in the middle of largest and fastest bought of inflation i have seen in my lifetime.
There is a reason why the inflation index does not include the cost of fuel or food- even when its long term.
Deregulate what? There are a lot of things that need to be deregulated. Deregulated does not mean no regulations, it means getting rid of the unproductive regulations. Sometimes that happens without problems, sometimes it does not. More problems are created by regulation BTW. If you do not believe me, just take a look at health care in the US and HMOs. Congress invented HMOs in 1968 in an attempt to control social security spending and has kept a heavy hand at regulating them ever since. But the democrat gem now is claimed to be the root of all evil in health care and reason to why they need to change everything in all their wisdom once again.
Regulation does not automagically mean better. Without you specifically mentioning what regulation you are referring to, I can only guess. But Bad regulation is more often then not, worse then no regulation. Do not confuse removing bad regulation with problems of no regulation.
Enron and Madoff could not have been caught sooner. There is rumor that people complained to the SEC over Madoff but documented checks turned up nothing. You know why? Because they falsified their documentation and set out on a path of purposely defrauding people. Your statement has the tone of which you would like to stop a drunk driver from crashing into a family of 5 because the cops should have somehow stopped them sooner because there is regulation against being drunk in public and operating a motor vehicle while drunk. But here is the problem, if the drunk, or the next Madoff, or whomever, hide their illegal activity, you cannot do anything until such time that lie is exposed.
Hopefully, that exposure occurs before anyone is seriously hurt, and often it does, but sometimes it doesn't. When someone sets out to deceive and lie to people, you generally do not know until its too late and there is really no way or little way to know until someone has been harmed.
But this still has little to do with the privatization plans i have seen.
That's a pretty good soundbite. but doesn't match reality.
Medicaid has nothing to do with seniors, Its a state run ordeal that deals with the indigent. The cuts to medicare that I know of seem to be surrounding a means testing in which the rich seniors who wouldn't be dependent on medicare would have to pay for coverage, and I see nothing wrong with privatizing social security. It's not like there won't be rules on it that already are in place for anyone else involved in an existing retirement program outside of Social Security. In fact, there would probably be even more rules in place that would have largely negated any lasting impact of crashed like the recent one.
Are you talking about the Columbus Ohio city center mall? They used to bus people in from out of state to shop there, then it became all kids, there were some gang problems, and no one wanted to visit it. People who lived a few blocks from it would drive across town avoiding it to shop safely.
East land mall had much the same problems and is as you describe "an anchor store" but otherwise empty. Polaris and Tuttle malls kept the kid and gang problems down, but i haven't been to either in 8 or more years. I'm sure you could be talking about almost any city.
Here is a thought.
All county and local municipalities get their authority to tax from the state because they are a political subdivision. So if it is really necessary to collect sales tax for every state someone orders something from, then have the state set a default sales tax equal to the average of all the different sales taxes within the state and distribute the excess to it's own political subdivisions.
This might upset some communities who's sales tax is a lot more, but in reality, it would be an additional collection for them as it probably would never be reported or paid otherwise. In this case, they only need to worry about the State Internet sales tax of ~49 states plus the states they are operating from. The state then takes it's portion and forwards the rest to the municipalities within it's jurisdiction based on the other aspects of the mailing or billing address.
This complication, if it truly is necessary, really needs to be placed on the state and not the retailers when they are outside the state. And it will take an act of congress to make it happen.
Maybe he is confused between interstate and intrastate?
One of the problems is that Gas Taxes aren't always spent on the roads. They go to rail systems and scenic bike paths that do not service any businesses, and in one case that i know of, they supplemented a local authority distributing HUD funding. Yes, they used the gas tax revenue allocated to the local municipality to buy HUD eligible homes to be rented out for just a bit more then the interest payments on the homes. The city will have a balloon payment to pay after 15 years. Once you figure maintenance into the costs, the city will lose money on it. but whoever sold them got more then the market price after it crashed.