It is still painfully obvious that you have not read the Good Book.
Actually, what is painfully obvious is your lack of context and ability to understand what you are reading.
t's clear that God knew what was going to happen, even if you believe that he is somehow unaware of the future, despite all the claims in the Bible that he is all seeing and all knowing. It's also quite obvious that there is no moral basis for killing children, under any circumstances, under any covenant, or whatever desperate logical fallacy you next try to conjure up in order to preserve your faith. Again, this fact is apparent to us because we are more civilized in many ways than ancient desert tribes.
But it's clear that you do not know the context of these verses. When you cite a specific verse to make a general statement, at least make sure you are doing so in context.
The first quote is from Deuteronomy 2, and if you would have read it as well as the first chapter, you would know that Moses was leading the Jews to the promised land and they attempted to pass through Heshbon peacefully and offered to pay for meat and water but Sihon refused and "had all of his people" meet the Jews in arms at Jahaz. I mean fuck, you even quoted the verse that said so and didn't get the point.
The next quote is near identical, chapter 3 tells of all the people of Bashan coming out to battle the Jews at Edrei.
So you have a people who asked to pass peacefully who were met by all of the people attempting to fight them and you are blaming God for this. So what, it happened, nothing in the verse says it is allowed to happen again, nothing says he encourages it or anything of the sort that you were attempting to claim in your last post. The bible is full of stories of God destroying entire areas because they didn't listen to his will or do as he commanded. It still doesn't reflect on Christianity because it's still coming from the old testament. And I'm not even sure why you even pointed this out, you have said our values have changed from the days of the Jews wandering through the desert and killing children isn't acceptable. Well, it does happen today when children take weapons and attempt to kill others but that's another point entirely.
It sounds like you are completely confused about Christianity altogether. If you do not know about or understand the different covenants in the bible, then you cannot understand the bible or anything christian. You claim it's a logical fallacy, but in fact it's a product of your ignorance and imagination if anything from the truth. The verses you quoted were not Christians doing things, they were Jews doing things, the bible itself makes this clear. Christians didn't even come about until the new testament and new covenant with Jesus- after his death and resurrection. If you do not understand that, then there is nothing about the christian religion you can properly understand.
I agree that the New Testament is a much more liberal and humanist philosophy. It contains its fair share of misery and lies, but it remains a larger mistake to have tied it to the Old Testament. Inherent in this is the fact that God can change his mind about what is right and what is wrong, which seems to defeat the purpose of morality. If God can change what morality is at any time, then there is no such thing as truth. Truth is simply as God defines it at any given moment, and this property applied to any other conscience would simply be known as hypocrisy.
The new testament is the new covenant. Grouping it to the old testament is little more then a history lesson in what happened and how it came to where it is.
As for varying morality, this is what we are seeing now anyways. If you ask 20 different people from different parts of the world a question on morality, you are likely to get 20 different answers to the meaning of the question or the moral obligation
Once again, you are full of bullshit and taking things into your own context and not the context presented. And for some reason, you seem to think you know what I believe in or think without me ever saying anything about it.
So genocide is justified, down to the last infant, if a tribe denies Yahweh, lures Israelites with sex (accountability -- what's that?) which somehow causes a plague to come upon his chosen people. Now, is it more likely that this is the view of an omnipotent, eternal, compassionate, perfect, and loving God, or the bloodlust revenge of some tribe? How can you possibly continue to defend statements like those on moral grounds?
No, genocide is not justified at all. What you are reading is only saying that it happened because Moses made it happen. It doesn't say god made it happen or that it should happen every day. God told Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites, not to kill all the children or women or anything. Moses came up with that on his own. And to that effect, it is read as a history lessen that it happened, not that it's allowed to happen or that it should happen again.
Anything about justification or compassion or loving or whatever is nothing more then your ignorance reading into it and taking things completely out of context. IF you would have read the entire chapter instead of what your parroting from some website, and have the slightest ability to comprehend what you read, you would have seen this because it's obvious from the start. Numbers 31:1-2 simple says The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." Moses ordered the how and what came after, not God. He did so by using the curse God placed on the Israelites as the justification not because God told him to. Hell, you even quoted his personal justification for his orders. If god would have told him to, he would have said God commanded something to be done.
I'm not even going to bother with that page. While it does bring out some technical aspects that have some merit, it presupposes the mistaking of context in which you have already made. And yes, this is obvious by the quotes mentioned for the reasoning of his undertaking in creating the site. As I said before, all that God ordered Moses to do was to take vengeance. Moses did that under his own command and thought process and it should be viewed as nothing more then a historical "this happened" type of verse. It definitely does not say it was ok, nor does it say that God ordered it to happen or anything that you attempted to claim.
So you see, the reason I cannot be a Christian is because I can not and will not defend the murder of children, pregnant women, or the forced marriage and rape of virgins.
I'm not sure anyone has asked you to be a christian, I certainly have not. However, it seems that your reasons are your own ignorance and inability to understand context and the written words in front of you. Perhaps you should take my advice and read the bible before making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps you should found your beliefs about the religion on something that is real and within reality. You know, reality is that thing that doesn't cease to exist when you do.
You have decided that as long as God commands genocide and the horrors that follow, you have no moral qualms. I think it's safe to say that you and I cannot have resolution on this issue.
You do not know what I have or haven't done or what moral qualms I do or do not have. Quit pretending that you do. As I already stated, I do not believe the chapter says
I'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone. In grade school when we heard of motherfucker, we had a saying that I'm sure most everyone else has probably heard, Mother fucker I may be, but the mother I fuck, isn't the mother of me. Basically, if you're married with children, you can be a motherfucker, if you like milfs, you're a motherfucker (could be anyways), or if you're just being insulted generically, your a motherfucker, and all this is without a bit of incest being involved. And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often, it's hard to find a single woman of legal age that hasn't had a kid or two unless you're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot.
IMHO a lot of this is culture. In the past, there were some treatments that worked. These have been adopted by the medical system, regulated, and now most of what's left is the useless but harmless treatments. Beneficial herbs became pharmaceuticals, spinal manipulations that work are incorporated into osteopathic medicine and physical therapy, and even leeches and bloodletting are valid medical procedures.
It doesn't hurt the idea of alternative medicine any when you have political forces railing on the pharmaceutical industry as being dishonest or in it only for profits leading to many others claiming that they only treat-not cure illnesses because that's where the money is. It opens the door for the eternal optimism that the secret cure the pill makers don't want you to know about really works.
Then you have idiots claiming that Native Americans never had cancer or that isolated tribes in Africa never had a recorded case of diabetes before the white man met them. Of course this is ignoring the fact that they had no way of checking those things until the outsiders met them. But hey, if it pushes their point, then what the hell, I guess it's fair.
You can't get insurance after becoming ill and have it cover anything to do with that illness. I'm not saying that is unfair but I think you will find that it's hard to get any form of insurance if you have certain conditions regardless of the fact that they will not affect you for many years. This seems very unfair to me and I expect that it will get worse. They already want to know if your parents have any illnesses so how long before they start using data mining to make sure they don't provide insurance to those who are likely to use it? Pretty sure credit checks are being used now which is rather absurd.
Actually, this is mostly a state by state governed issue but generally, the only limit outside of cost is a one year waiting period for preexisting condition coverage. In my state, that isn't even allowed if the company changes insurance providers and you purchase your policies through your work. And in the case of costs, the provider cannot increase your premiums if your a new hire within the 90 day limit or enroll during the open enrollment for at least one year after. And ot make things a little more clearer or obfuscated (depending on how you look at it), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HPAA) which is a federal law mandates that no waiting period be applied to anyone with a preexisting condition who leaves a group plan for any other coverage plane. This means that if you are fired or lose your job which you purchased your insurance through, or if you were a member of a club or organization (our local chamber of commerce offers both HMO coverage and indemnification coverage options to all members) which offered coverage under a group plan and left it for some reason, any provider you move to cannot deny coverage or require a waiting period because of a preexisting condition.
OF course, those are the rules in my state with the exception of the HPAA which should be nationally. Unfortunately, the HPAA does not protect private policy holders when they move coverage but there are still some companies that will cover preexisting conditions. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is one that I believe has a no fault- no waiting- policy that covers preexisting conditions.
I had the foresight to get a personal health insurance plan before I became ill with a couple of non-life threatening illnesses. It's a PPO which is suppose to be better than an HMO but who really knows anymore. Anyhow, I've since tried to change plans and also providers but that's completely impossible. You can never change your deductible or switch providers and still have a pre-existing condition covered. I don't goto the doctor anymore than most of you but in 20 years that will likely change and so lowering my deductible now is a big no-no...
If you are looking at 20 years or so into the future, may I suggest that you create a Heath Savings Account and purchase some sort of catastrophe insurance as a supplemental program. The advantages of a HSA is that you can move the funds before taxes apply which saves the hassle of claiming medical costs on your return or not having enough out of pocket costs to benefit from claiming them. As I mentioned before, the HPAA doesn't cover private policy holders so you are probably in a catch 22. The catastrophic insurance would/could provide coverage for your preexisting condition if something happened and your existing coverage faltered (lost jobs and/or couldn't afford premium or company goes out of business or whatever). In my state, the law used to be that a provider couldn't cancel coverage for non-payment while a patient was hospitalized and there was a grace period after before they were allowed to cancel coverage to give the patient a chance to come current in their premiums. However, I'm not sure if this is still true or if any other states have this rule/law.
Honestly health insurance is really just a big scam as everyone gets sick sooner or later. The o
Perhaps if you would concentrate on what I said instead of what you think you know, you would have payed attention to the "WCT" and the "WPPT" which is where the DMCA and anti-circumvention laws come from. It's neither part of the Berne Convention or WTO (TRIPS).
TRIPS is a WTO agreement not WIPO and the Berne convention is way before WIPO has come around. BTW, the WTO is where some of the trade advantages come from but the majority of them go through WIPO agreements which can be both executive agreements as well as treaty obligations.
Tell me, based on a the following verse, do you support raping a kidnapped woman after you've killed her family?
Again, your ignorance is a shining example of idiocy. The verse you quoted is taken out of context. As other places in the bible indicate, what a person does with their body is up to them. This means that you can't force yourself onto a woman and a woman can't force herself onto a man. There is no rape involved here. In the bible, the term used for getting married was taking a wife. It was meant by mutual consent or some law of the land which made it happen (IE. buying a slave for a wife or making a deal with some family for a wife.) However, whether or not she put out was completely up to her even though the bible says that not having sex with your husband or wife when they want it is a sin. The bible also makes it clear that you are not to be with a married person and you are not to kill the husband of someone to take her as your wife.
The verse you quoted is not permission to plunder a village and steal the women after murdering their family, it's permission to ignore the other rules of conduct so if someone has lost their family due to war in which you participated and won, and you found her attractive, you could marry her without violating god's will. IF you notice, there is a part that allows you to let her go if your not satisfied with her.
What is the biggest cause of divorce today? No sex life is. It amplifies all of the other problems and may be a cause of some of the problems but not having a sex life does cause divorce as it encourages cheating and infidelity, creates hostile moods in which money problems become more of a problem, it creates issues concerning trust, even if it's all imaginary. You simply do not understand what you are reading and have not read more then what someone else has put out there for you to pretend you know it all. If you have read the bible, then you are one dumb mother fucker because it seems that you are forgetting about everything that gives it context.
I hope you understand that the DMCA and Anticircumvention laws in the US are a result from the WIPO "WTP" and "WPPT" treaties and not because of some industry lobbyist right? While the industry lobbyist may have helped craft the treaties and did play a role the penalties of the legislation, it was all required by two treaties that most of the world signed onto including Canada.
Canada signed onto the WTC and WPPT treaties in December of 1997. They haven't been able to ratify them or enter into force since then, but they are signatories and because of that, they are enjoying some trade status (with the US as well as Europe and other areas) that wouldn't otherwise be offered to them.
If you really want balance or something, then you need to convince your government to change the treaties and to get other nations to sign on to them. Otherwise it will be nothing but your country attempting to implement some part of the treaty and other member states criticizing them for not being able to do so.
Well, at least under the current death panels, you can get indemnity insurance which would cover treatment/illness regardless of what any HMO decides. You can also get treatment outside the HMO by either charity, private grant, or paying for it yourself without fear of facing jail time for doing so as the current proposals have decided was in your best interest. Your also not currently taxed to hell and back for carrying better insurance then the government equivalent of an HMO.
It's real easy to bitch and complain about something being unpopular when you ignore all the reasons why it's unpopular.
Just for the record, though, I want it to be clear that the tax can also apply to business that out-of-state corporations do within the state (the Ford case). I am not saying you did not understand that, I just wanted to make sure it was spelled out.
Yes, I understand that. But the out of state business must have more of a presences then what would be similar to a typical mail order house as the two cases I pointed out explain.
I also want to apologize for the name calling and measures I took to get your attention. I sort of felt like it was reciprocal in nature but I should have been able to make my case clear without resorting to that. It didn't really add anything to the discussions even though my failed attempt was to get you to notice what was being missed.
I think we have become a little more heated then a civil discussion should go. I replied to your other threads and took the time to point out where I still think you were wrong. You were mislead by information gathered somewhere else, and I failed to properly correct your understanding of that information. I think we should just leave it at that before it turns into a hate fest for no real reason. You were correct in your understanding of the B&O tax, however, as I attempted to state, the situation is very different that that understanding doesn't apply here. I think we were arguing two very separate issues without fully understanding what the other was attempting to say which made things -not so productive.
Complete bullshit. I was not ignoring it at all, because I was not aware of it. In fact, I was previously informed otherwise. Apparently incorrectly... but I neither ignored or assumed anything. Also, you never saw fit to mention it before (and I suspect you did not know yourself), so bringing it up now as though it had been a point of contention all along is not fooling anybody.
Since that appears to be the case, of course the situation is different. But that has no bearing whatever on how the B&O tax in Washington works, which (as I clearly demonstrated to you) can in fact reach outside the borders of the state. I won that argument, not you.
No, you didn't. You claimed that it didn't apply, but this is the first time you brought up the notion that they are two separate companies. Repeat: I bet you did not know yourself. And you still aren't fooling anybody. Your argument prior to this was that it couldn't apply because a corporation based in Washington was incorporated in Nevada. And I showed you that wasn't true.
Dude, It's not like the record has disappeared or something. I would go through the trouble and link to all that I have said but fuck, just hit the parent button and reread what you failed to read previously.
Do not sit there and attempt to claim I said something that the record clearly reflects wasn't said. I understand, someone gave you wrong information and this is a topic you are passionate about. Just admit you were wrong, you understand the real facts now, and lets move on. You are not going to save any face by claiming I did something totally different then what happened. Unlike a he said she said argument and third party renditions, we have a record that can be accessed right in front of us.
See? You knew very well that I was unaware of that fact. Otherwise you would not have worded it that way. (That isn't proof, of course, but the fact that you NEVER brought it up until now, and now hold it up like a shield, is very telling. But of course all one would have to do is read the prior posts to see that this had never been mentioned before.)
Read the above, reread the above, and do not bitch about me being an ass this time. I have attempted to explain that several times over since my first reply to your first reply and you have ignored the fact that they were separate companies. Whenever you would mention Boeing or Ford, I have made the case that they aren't the same because MS and MSLI aren't the same. Hell, I even asked you several times to explain why Washington has not went after them if you were correct. If you would have done a little research into that, I wouldn't have had to tell you 7 or more times that they are separate companies.
Similar enough. The Ford case clearly demonstrated that a corporation that is incorporated outside of Washington can still be taxed by Washington state (as long as it has a "substantial nexus" with the state), and the Boeing situation illustrates that if that "substantial nexus" is the corporate headquarters, Washington can tax the corporation on its full gross revenue, even if that revenue was derived from sales or other transactions out of the state.
And I never said that wasn't the case, I said, and you are acknowledging this with your statement here, that the MS case is different and they will not apply.
No shit, Sherlock? Wow. What a revelation. But obviously you do not know what THIS tax law can do, in WHAT situations. I don't need your explanations of totally different situations to know what you mean.
Actually, it's you that does not know what this law can and cannot do. The problem which you are completely ignoring is that Washington state only has a set limit of jurisdiction in which is can pass laws that effect entities outside their control. MSLI is one of those entities outside of their jurisdiction and no matter how much ignoring that fact you want to do, it doesn't make you right.
Yes! I agree. But since you mention situations, here is the real situation: up until now I did not know that MSLI and MSFT were different corporations, operating in different states. I had been misinformed and told that MSFT was incorporated in Nevada and operating in Washington, and that it was MSFT that had been trying to avoid paying B&O tax.
The fact that the situation is different than I had been told is not an indication that I do not understand the tax and how it works. Up until now you have been trying to tell me that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax outside its borders. I hope you understand now that you were wrong.
Actually, up until now, I have been telling you that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax a "company" that is outside it's borders and doesn't operate in the state. I was not wrong, you were just refusing to listen to what was being said. Either way, now you know that MSLI and MSTF are separate companies and one doesn't operate within Washington state.
Treating me like an infant does not make you look any better. As I mentioned, I did not know that MSLI was a separate corporation, or that it operated out of Nevada. I was led to believe that the situation was much different. But this situation still does not contradict what I was saying about the B&O tax, which you claimed was nonsense. So while I appreciate being corrected if that is the true situation, you still aren't going to talk your way out of the fact that you were wrong about that.
I have tried and tried to tell you that they were separate companies and you were ignoring that while yelling Boeing and Ford. I know you were led to believe the situation was different, that is why I have been futilely attempting to explain to you that they are different and telling you to pay attention to the fact and cite me a court case with similar circumstances instead of the ford or beoing. OF course it doesn't help that we are in three threads now so one reply to all that was said is more or less 6 message between the two of us.
As for your position on the B&O tax, what I claimed was nonesense was the premise you were pushing in that Washington could tax a company that was incorporated and operated in another state without operating inside of Washington. B&O taxes are very real in many states, their connections to companies operating in other states too is very real. In fact, most states with an income tax will apply the very same principles. It wasn't the B&O tax I objected to, it was how you were claiming it would apply when you were mistaken on the facts even though I attempted multiple times to explain them to you.
It is not difficult for me to grasp at all, and I very much resent the insinuation. Until a few minutes ago I did not know that there even was an MSLI.
Then you simply were not paying attention. I explained this a long time ago. It is here with "MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because
My dear boy, it's obvious who has not read the Bible. I don't doubt you have some bit of mental gymnastics ready to try and wriggle out of this fantastic claim, and I also have no doubt that I will find it both hilarious and sad.
I think it's funny that you think your lack of knowledge or understanding is somehow my fault. Mark 16 is the story about Mary finding Jesus' tomb empty and what Jesus said to his disciples. The part you quoted is where he told the disciples to go and preach his message, and those are signs that would confirm the message. It doesn't say that anyone can or will heal someone, it says that those signs will follow as in some will be able to do that in his name.
Why don't you stop reading what you think you want to hear into the damn thing and actually attempt to understand it a bit. I'm betting that if you put half as much effort into understanding it as you are trying to demonize it, you would find that it's an entirely different beast then you think it is. Hell, you might even dismiss some of your prejudices while your at it. And that's all probably going to happen even if your not a believer.
Again, we find ourselves at a point in time when you are simply wrong and attempting to blame it on others. Perhaps you should stop you mental gymnastics and just leave it alone if you aren't competent enough to read and understand the thing.
Are you really only willing to do something if there is a punishment if you don't? I'm sorry, but that's not the way I view things.
Let me change that to reflect the reality we are facing. I'm only willing to something that punishes me now, if there is a punishment later that would be worse.
The problem is that there are increased costs with changing now. Sure, if it was competitive in pricing, it wouldn't be a punishment now and the benefits would likely encourage a change now. If you can and are willing to afford a change right now, then do it, but forcing more expensive energy costs onto other people is really a punishment unless they are willing to take on the burden just like you are.
Let me make myself clear again: I don't give a shit whether AGW is true or not. Whatever the case, doing what we would need to do were AGW true are STILL good things! Do you not care about the fauna and flora going down the drain due to pollution? Do you not care about having a breathable atmosphere in downtowns? Do you not care about having clean water to drink for years to come? If you've answered yes to any of those questions, AGW should be irrelevant. Limiting our pollutive tendencies would *also* help that, and that's why I say we should keep going.
Well, not really. You see, there is more then one way to skin a cat. Of course if your skinning the cat for a specific purpose, then your options are limited or different then just getting the job done.
Cats aside, if we were reducing pollution because of AGW, then we would be considering natural gasses as a pollutant and working to get rid of those. That doesn't necessarily mean that the amount of soot (smog, dust, whatever) in the air would be lowered too. However, if we were ignoring AGW and tackling the problems like breathable air in the city or safe drinking water, then we could use filters on emissions stacks that are far less complicated and expensive then ones needed to mediate the natural gasses too. In one case, we might have to stop using a source of energy like coal or something where in the other, scrubbers would be sufficient.
So again, it's about cost and availability which translates back down to punishment to some degree. If I could afford it and the sun would cooperate, I would switch entirely to solar power but that's not a reality I would be able to see in any near future. I don't think that it's anyone is anti change, they just do not want to down grade or have to pay more without a justification that works for them.
Oh... and just so we are clear on something: Boeing also does business in many states. So, pray tell me how Washington could tax them on their corporate gross revenue? No matter where the planes were sold? Please... explain that one to me. In the process of finding out, you might actually learn something.
OMG, are you that stupid? Boeing doesn't have subsidiary corporations operating solely in different states. And for the ones they do have, only the amount of business conducted within the state is taxed. Now think about this. Suppose Boeing operated in all 50 states and all 50 states have a 3% gross receipts tax and a B&O tax just like Washington does. Seriously, think about that, now at 3% (I know Washington may be a different number but your same principle applies and 3% is just illustrative) times 50 states, then 150% or gross revenue would be needed to satisfy their B&O tax obligation. How in the fuck would any company supposed to be able to do that? They can't take in more money because it's subject to the same taxes. 150% of $10 would have the same effect as 150% of $20, that is to say that no matter how much they brought in, they would be 33% short in meeting their tax obligations. And this is without even mentioning costs and so on.
Do you really think things work the way you think they do, or do you think you should take this as an opportunity to find out a little more about the situation? In your next paragraph, you do admit that it's limited to the activities within the state as with the background of the Boeing case. However, Boeing did not incorporate into a separate company when it left the state, it's the same company which is different from the MS situation.
Believe me, I understand your arguments. But I am trying to convince you that you are wrong, because you are. Microsoft might be exempt from some kinds of taxes because it is incorporated in another state... but not the B&O tax, which has nothing to do with where the business is incorporated, because of its "substantial nexus" in Washington State.
You are missing a key point here. MS is incorporated and operates in Washington, MS licensing is incorporated and operates in Nevada. They are in fact, for all legal purposed, two completely separate companies. This makes it significantly different then Boeing because Boeing remained the same entity and kept a portion of the entity within the state. MS is not the same entity as MSLI and MSLI does not operate in Washington State.
It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. Despite your claim that Washington only has jurisdiction in Washington, this very clearly says otherwise: "A state tax on interstate commerce does not violate the commerce clause so long as the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State..." Note that phrase: "A state tax on interstate commerce..." Interstate. Get it? Commerce outside of Washington! In other words, for this kind of tax Washington does have jurisdiction.
The problem here is that you are looking at the word Microsoft in the name and assuming they are the same legal companies. They are not, they are completely separate entities and the extent of MSLI's presence in Washington equates the the equivalent of a mail order house even though Microsoft corp operates within Washington. This is further obfuscated because the product that MS sells is basically a copyrighted set of code. Now MS can sell the rights to reproduce and distribute the code to MSLI for basically nothing (Even less then the cost of producing the code because MSLI is owned by MSTF and profits from MSLI would be deposited with MSTF as a share dividend) and MSLI can in turn license the code for whatever it wants- independent of operations going on in Washington. This further decreases Washington State's jurisdiction because these abilities are granted within federal law as well as backed by the US constitution giving congress the power to make laws governing copyright.
Jesus Christ, you are dense. If you want to prove it to yourself, all you have to do is GO TO WASHINGTON and see for yourself!
You could also look it up for yourself, if you wanted. But no, you would rather spend an hour typing about your pet legal theories.
Your calling me dense, I already looked it up and told you that things are not how you think they are. You are ignoring the differences like the fact that MSTF and MSLI are completely separate companies and one of them does not even have a presence in Washington or operate within it and yet you are completely ignoring that. Like I said before, look at the facts, not what you want to think but look at what is actually going on.
I am done here. I have already indulged your lazy ass long enough. If you can't get it through your head that this tax is a FACT, and that lots better (and more) lawyers than you have not managed to beat it, then I guess you are just going to have to remain ignorant the rest of your life.
Again, pay attention to the detailed, I never said the tax wasn't real, I said it doesn't apply and that the circumstances involving Microsoft and Microsoft licensing are different then those in Boeing and Ford Motor comp. That's not a hard concept for anyone half way competent to apprehend. I even attempt to spell out the differences and you are still ignoring it. I guess all I can say is that you are going to be completely disappointed when things do not work out like you think they are.
I will say this one more time (that makes at least three): If you think you are so goddamned smart, then put your money where your mouth is, and go to Washington and win a case. All it would take is one. The corporations there would shower you with money.
And I will say it one more time, find me a court case where the facts are the same and your position was upheld. So far you have not, you cannot, and yes, I have looked and attempted to find them myself, they simply do not exist. I do not need to go to Washington and try anything, we have MSTF and MSLI already doing it and guess what, your claim is not working out. It hasn't worked for over 13 years and they are attempting to change the law in the state to include sales within the state but seem to be struggling at best with that.
So show me the cases in which the facts are all the same. Do not sit there and call me lazy for not being able to find anything that backs up your assertion, you made the assertion, so you back it up. And before you do that, educate yourself on a few key things like MSTF and MSLI being completely separate companies and how MSLI does not operate within the state of Washington.
But you won't, of course, for at least two reasons: (1) you don't have the balls to have any courage of your convictions, and (2) because (argue all you like, it doesn't matter): you are dead wrong.
I think it's sort of telling when you have failed to back up your assertion and yet you want to criticize me in less then polite means. Well, I'm calling you on the table here, put up or shut up. Find out the fact surrounding MS and MSLI, find a case that is similar or the same, and present it here. And no, Boeing and Ford are not similar or the same. The facts are completely difference.
You might want to ask yourself something though, if things are the way you think they are, then why has MS been allowed to operate this way for more then 13 years while you continue to cry and scream about their wrong doing with neither the state or any municipality taking legal action against them? I'll give you a hint, it's because you are wrong.
And you don't have the sense (or maybe the guts) to simply look it up yourself and find out that you are wrong.
One more time, not because I think it will get through this time but just to make sure you didn't miss this somehow:
I think we are about done here. You have shut your ears and are just repeating the same incorrect dribble and not even remotely understanding what I said. I'm not sure if that is because I'm not a good teacher or if your just that incompetent. Lets just assume the fault is mine for now but pay close attention to what I mention in the following reply.
The tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. The law behind the tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. Large corporations with their batteries of lawyers (yes, including Boeing and Ford Motor Co.) have tried to beat the tax in court, and failed. That is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. (I gave you a link to the decision in the Ford case. That was the Washington Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court would not hear their appeal. So the decision stands.) But even with that evidence in front of you, you still say I am wrong. The state is considering taking Microsoft to the cleaners for their past failure to pay the tax... and if the state can nail Boeing and Ford for it (fact), then they can very probably get Microsoft, too.
There are all sorts of real laws on the books that cannot be enforce in every situation. That is fact. Lets take murder for instance, very few states have laws saying when it's ok to kill someone but most of them have laws saying it's illegal to do so. However, when someone attacks you screaming they are going to kill you and in the course of you struggling to save your life you end up killing the attacker, they cannot convict you of murder (well, they can but federal tort will turn it over on appeal so it's pointless for them to try). Most municipalities have laws forbidding jaywalking (crossing the street against a signal or outside of a marked cross walk). However, they cannot convict you of jaywalking if you did it because a todler was walking into traffic on the other side of the street and you jaywalked in order to save him from danger and harm. This is well established within our legal system as doctrine called necessity. This means that the circumstances made violating the law necessary because the alternative would have been worse. In some cases, escaping from prison has been held as necessary and the escape charges were dropped against prisoners who broke out of jail. What differentiates the allowed from the not allowed is the specific circumstances surrounding the violation. If you were to walk up and kill someone, you would be charged with and convicted of murder, if you jaywalk, you can be charged with and convicted with jaywalking, if the situation was different, the law wouldn't have applied.
So, hopefully, now you can understand that the circumstances and specifics of a case means certain laws can apply and sometimes they can't. In fact, the entire principle of law is this way where certain facts surrounding something can make something legal, illegal and something illegal legal. The facts surrounding the situation can make a law apply or excuse the law from applying. That's a simple fact of our legal system no matter how hard you want to ignore it.
The two cases you mentioned, Boeing and Ford, both have circumstances significantly different then MSLI and MSTF. As I have mentioned in each other thread/post, this is a very real fact that you cannot ignore. It's probably the very real fact to why Washington state has allowed MS to operate without paying the tax since 1997 and no one complained until 2006 or so when their government spending started out performing gross receipts. Now if things were the way you think they are and everything is the same color of fruit and all fruit tastes like an apple, then why has MS been allowed to get aw
You are welcome to explain why, based on this verse, we should not teach medical students to put their fingers in the ears of the deaf or spit and touch the tongues of the mute. If we can discard this sad excuse for a miracle, then why can't Genesis be an allegory? And if Genesis can be an allegory, why must this allegory be presented next to evolution?
I guess the embarrassing parts are embarrassing for you. Well, get ready for some more because I seriously do not know why you would think that just because a book says one person who has supernatural powers did something and had a specific outcome, that we should think that regular people doing it would have the same outcome. Seriously, the bible says Jesus is the son of god and worked miracles, not that you should teach med students to parody him. Here is just more of your obvious non-understanding of the bible and what it says. As for Genesis, who cars if it is allegory or not. I'm not here to defend the bible, I'm here to show how silly you are acting and that you have just as little of a clue as the people you are attempting to demonize. However, that's unimportant to the point because no one ever said religion has to be right or correct, they said you have the freedom to practice any religion you want or to not practice is at all and no government in the US can force either approach onto you. Hell, the bible could say that you are a hero to mice and it wouldn't make a difference in anything when the schools start saying you are not.
If something cannot be tested with the scientific method, then it cannot be a scientific conclusion. This means that if no experiment can be proposed to falsify Creationism, there is currently no scientific reason to believe it occurred.
And your point is what? I already stated that creation is not science and cannot be. However that is pointless because the problem isn't with creation, it's with how science is being taught by a government organization and ends up saying things about religion. If you would pay attention to more then yourself, you would have already known that because not only have I mentioned it several times over, Almost all of the people attempting to get statements about other theories or to have creation mentioned or to explains the weaknesses of evolution theory are doing so claiming the intent is to balance the negatives about religions that is being taught in the schools.
Evolutionary theory perfectly fits with radiometric dating. Evolutionary theory perfectly fits with the fossil record. Evolutionary theory perfectly fits with the biology of isolated islands, observed experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, and other organisms with short life spans. Nothing has been found which contradict the central, testable laws of evolution:
Radiometric dating does not prove evolution as in the parts in conflict with creation, parts like Speciation. Neither does the islands, or experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, or other organisms. Those do however, show that it is likely but it doesn't prove it.
You are suffering from the famous false dichotomy problem. Because all you have seen is black sheep, you think all sheep are black. However, it's even worse because it isn't even what you have seen, but what others claimed to have seen. You are putting a lot of faith in that what they tell you is right and everything else is wrong. In fact, you are acting just like the devout Christians who claim they are the only ones right.
And BTW, Speciation is not a testable law of evolution, and there are several scientific theories dismissing the idea of "All life descended from a single ancestor". In fact, the entire idea of a single ancestor species is not even testable. You also have a problem with the idea of Evolution is gradual being one of your laws of evolution. Haven't you ever heard of the punctuated equilibrium? Or horizontal evolution?
Since there's never been anything beyond hearsay supporting the super-naturalist delusions out there, I highly doubt it. I've skipped over many things you said not because you were accurate, but because the truth was embarrassingly obvious to point out.
Boy, you seem to think you know it all, it is was so obvious, then why was it missed? Actually, the problem is that you couldn't defend your position against them.
I won't coddle you like your church elders - you can find many instances of traced evolution, predicted missing links, and much more on talkorigins.org, and you're more than capable of reading about them yourself. I have already read the bible and many of it's famous apologists, and I remain convinced of the evidence, or lack thereof.
Church elders? What ever gave you the idea I go to church? I'm actually against organized religion. You are assuming to much based on nothing you know. As for talk origins, if you were capable of critical thinking, you would see that all of the missing link examples fall into the interpreted categories I mentioned earlier and all of the examples of speciation require the changing or altering of a definition or the standing of a position that would seem ridiculous if applied liberally outside the one example. Again, think for yourself and quit repeating what others have told you.
It is true that the definition of a species is complicated, but usually it means that members of the same species do breed or are capable of breeding. Canines are a ring species, meaning that adjacent populations can breed and others cannot. However, you have painted yourself into a corner here: if Great Danes cannot successfully breed - even with artificial means of insemination - with a Chihuahua, then we have evidence of observed speciation, which is evidence of evolution. If they can interbreed in such a way, then your argument has been invalidated.
Canines are not a ring species and you are making the mistake of ignorance while once again repeating something someone else has said without the slightest bit of investigation or critical thinking on your own.
Great Danes and Chihuahua's can interbreed. The problem you are attempting to show is that the modern teacup version of the Chihuahua cannot bread with Great Danes and be the host of the offspring. However, this is factually incorrect when stated as the breed of Chihuahua because the Chihuahua is actually a dog that can reach up 40 lbs or more. It was originally bread by the Aztecs and used for hunting deer. Modern Kennel clubs only place the 10lbs restrictions on the breed for "showing purposes", not the breed itself. Now here is what screws your assertion, the Chihuahua can be bread back from the smaller teacup versions to the larger 40 lbs+ dog without ever leaving the breed. It is simply factually incorrect to claim a Chihuahua and a great Dane cannot breed.
BTW, the only limitations for the great Dane breeding with the Chihuahua is mechanical, not biological. That is to say that either the one dog couldn't reach the organs to successfully inseminate the other or the other couldn't successfully carry the offspring to term because of the differences in physical size. With the larger versions of the Chihuahua, neither of this is a problem.
But hey, you remain convinced of the evidence, or lack thereof right?
You're saying that as long a majority of the population believes something that isn't true, then it should be taught in school. I do not think this is a wise idea.
If it was written into the constitution, then yes. And no, it's not being taught in school, it being shown that there are other beliefs about Abiogenises and evolution and that while some parts of Evolution is observable fact, not all of it is. You cannot say that Evolution is completely true and remain in the scientific mindset, not can you
You should note that ion both cases, the substantial nexus is cited but you are wrong in the Corporate headquarters. MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because MSLI is owned by MSTF is non-important in this distinction because under current law, federal, state, and yes, even Washington State laws, ownership of a corporation does not directly imply operation of the corporation and they are viewed as two completely separate entities. This is evident from bankruptcy laws in which MSTF or MSLI could go bankrupt without imposing any liabilities on the other. This is even true within the state of Washington.
I got to admit, you have heart, you just do not have all the information or the ability to competently process it.
Since the corporate headquarters are in Washington State, Washington State takes the view that the corporation IS operating entirely within the state. You can argue with them about that all you want, but you probably won't get anywhere. Nobody else has. Also, you should know that is the same reason Boeing moved their corporate headquarters OUT of Washington, but their main manufacturing facilities are still there. If Boeing couldn't beat the tax (and they tried), there's not much chance Microsoft will, either. If registering the corporation in Nevada or Delaware instead would have beaten the tax, don't you think they would have done that? Boeing has lawyers, too, and they aren't stupid.
And that view has been struck down by several courts. And the only way the view could be held in court is if they adopted a "throw back rule" (yes, do some research on it) which states that only tangible goods ships from within the state can be taxed as if the sale was made within the state. OF course this is not the case as the software installation media is not always shipped from within Washington and the volume licensing requirements do no require a CD (read tangible good) for each install.
I'm also still waiting for you to list a court case the state won where the circumstances are the same. You haven't done it yet, and you will not be able to. The two links you mention in the next paragraph don't even come close either.
Why don't you just ask any corporate officer in Washington State? And the case law is not exactly hidden, I am sure you can find it on the internet. But I am not going to go out of my way to provide it for you; I already know this to be fact. You can waste as much time as you like on it. But just for some basics, I spent about 10 seconds to Google "washington state B&O tax", and HERE is the first returned entry. It doesn't cover the legal cases but it does tell you something about the tax. And HERE is the fourth entry, about SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal from Ford Motor Co.
Ford couldn't beat it. Boeing couldn't beat it. But you think you can? (BTW, the Ford case was about dealers in WA state, not the whole corp.)
And here is where you are wrong. In both of those cases, the activities in question which the state made the B&O tax applicable was over goods shiped or delivered from within the state by companies operating outside the state but with a presence in the state. With the MSLI situation, nothing is shipped from the state and MS doesn't sell the media directly itself, it only sells the tangible goods through authorized resellers which escape MS selling within the state. Nothing gives the state of Washington the jurisdiction of the state that they held in the Boeing or or ford motor company cases you mention. You lawyer will probably tell you this, but attention to details is a requirement of understanding laws. You are extremely confused and ignorant on this and should shut up before making yourself look even worse.
Here is a break down in a more easily understandable method. Lets say you have two separate companies, Company A and Company B. Lets say each company owns a subsidiary company Aa and Bb. Lets also say that both subsidiary companies are located in Nevada and both parent companies are located in the same state (Washington). Now both companies conduct business with their subsidiary companies but with a minor difference in their mode of operation. Company Aa sells products and ships them from company A's warehouse. Company Bb sells the same products but ships them from a clearing house in China and only sells to resellers except with bulk licensing to companies through what would fall under "federal Mail order" laws. Under Washington's B&O law, or any state laws for the matter, only company Aa and company A can both be within the Jurisdiction of the state (Washington) because their activities are not sufficiently separate. With company B and Bb, the acti
sumdumass, you can make as many arguments as you want about this. But the REALITY is that this is a real tax, it has been in place many years, it has been challenged many times in court... and it's still there.
Lol.. I never said the tax isn't real or isn't applied. I said it has jurisdictional boundaries and wouldn't apply to a separate corporation operating in another state no matter what ties to a parent corporation it has. Like I said, name some of those cases and we will quickly see that the facts within them are different from this.
Complain, argue about it, say it's illegal or unconstitutional or whatever you want. Those arguments have all been heard before, many times.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Those arguments have been made and supported many times over. In fact, they have probably been upheld more then they have been overturned. The problem here is that you are not recognizing the corporate structure of the separation of companies that the law allows.
But that doesn't change the fact that the tax is a reality. Your arguments do no good whatever.
I never said the tax is not a reality, I said it doesn't apply because of the circumstances surrounding the two entities. The only way you can think my arguments aren't worthy is if you are willingly skipping over relevant facts or are completely clueless about the corporate structure and the separate of states.
Tell you what. If you really believe in all your legal theories about this tax, why don't you go to Washington and make many millions of dollars for the corporations there that have tried to fight it before and lost, by taking it to court and actually winning this time? Put your money where your mouth is. You would stand to make a genuine fortune.
Like I said before, show me the cases you talk about where the circumstances are substantially the same. You cannot and instead of me going to Washington, why don't you just look at MS who has been using this legal maneuver since 1997 without any objections until Washington state started spending more then it took in. And those objections are not even legal objections or Washington State would have already taken them to court. No state will allow any company or person to skip out on paying taxes when they know they are in the right to collect them. There is a reason why you are here 13 years later complaining about the situation and the state has done nothing about it. 13 years in state legislature and nothing at all has been done about it, and to further the issue at hand, the new law purposed would only tax MS for the business done within the state which is in line with what I have said.
You can blame it on greed or corruption within the state, but the bottom line is that if there was a legal footing, then MS would be paying the tax right now or in court defending against it. I'm sorry that you are confused and ignorant of the way subsidy corporations operate but your ignorance does not make you correct.
That is complete nonsense. If their primary base is in Washington State (it is), the state has every legal right to tax them on their total revenue (known in Washington as the "B&O tax"). This tax has been active in Washington for many years now. If it were illegal, someone would have challenged it long since. (Actually it has been challenged, and it's still there.) If you think they "cannot really" do that, I suggest you talk with a Washington State tax attorney and find out why you are wrong. Here are some hints:
This is complete nonsense. The state of Washington only has jurisdiction within the state of Washington. It cannot tax money that was earned and stays in another state. Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in. This is true for a business or individual. If you move to Oregon, Washington has no legitimate right to tax you unless you enter Washington for work or move back. This is true for every state. The only time it comes into question is when someone or some company physically moves to another state while still claiming residency within the original state, then their income is still taxable to a certain extent.
Where MS is legal in this issue is that it's licensing division is a completely separate incorporation operating in a completely separate state under the laws of incorporation for that state. The fact that they are a subsidiary of Microsoft is irrelevant as the current law creates a separation.
Again, complete nonsense. What is prohibited by the Constitution is charging sales tax for sales in other states. The B&O tax is neither a sales tax or an income tax.
The constitution sets the limits of the powers of jurisdiction of the states to within their own borders. It doesn't allow taxes or imposts of any kind to be levied against people and companies operating within another state unless they do business within the state itself. And to that point, it is limited to the amount of business done within the state unless congress agrees to some sort of agreement or compact with the other state. The limit is not on sales tax at all, it's on the sovereignty of the states. If Other states, decided to tax all activity committed in other states by companies with a presence in their own state, it would be impossible for any company to operate within more then one state and make a profit.
Also, Washington State probably would NOT lose if that were taken to court, because again B&O is not a sales tax, and Microsoft's primary base of operations is in Washington State, regardless of where they are incorporated. The B&O tax is not an income tax either. You are mixing apples and oranges.
I do not know why you are concentrating on a sales tax, the issue isn't taxes in general, it's jurisdiction. The State of Washington has no legal authority over a Nevada corporation operating in subsidiary to Microsoft. The B&O tax is only aplicable to activities outside the state if it was committed by the same company as which is located within the state. This means if you stated "Jane Q. Public software sales" in Washington and did work in California, you would be taxed in Washington on the B&O rate. However, if you created a separate company in California and incorporated it under their laws, lets call it "Jane Q. Public software sales of California", your activities in the state of California wouldn't be subject to the Washington State B&O tax. It would be subject to any California taxes but that's another story.
Like it or not, a subsidiary entity incorporated and legal in another state is for all intents and purposed an separate company operating within that other state. It doesn't matter who owns what or who the parent company/entity is, it's completely separate and within the sole jurisdiction of the other state except whe
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what is painfully obvious is your lack of context and ability to understand what you are reading.
But it's clear that you do not know the context of these verses. When you cite a specific verse to make a general statement, at least make sure you are doing so in context.
The first quote is from Deuteronomy 2, and if you would have read it as well as the first chapter, you would know that Moses was leading the Jews to the promised land and they attempted to pass through Heshbon peacefully and offered to pay for meat and water but Sihon refused and "had all of his people" meet the Jews in arms at Jahaz. I mean fuck, you even quoted the verse that said so and didn't get the point.
The next quote is near identical, chapter 3 tells of all the people of Bashan coming out to battle the Jews at Edrei.
So you have a people who asked to pass peacefully who were met by all of the people attempting to fight them and you are blaming God for this. So what, it happened, nothing in the verse says it is allowed to happen again, nothing says he encourages it or anything of the sort that you were attempting to claim in your last post. The bible is full of stories of God destroying entire areas because they didn't listen to his will or do as he commanded. It still doesn't reflect on Christianity because it's still coming from the old testament. And I'm not even sure why you even pointed this out, you have said our values have changed from the days of the Jews wandering through the desert and killing children isn't acceptable. Well, it does happen today when children take weapons and attempt to kill others but that's another point entirely.
It sounds like you are completely confused about Christianity altogether. If you do not know about or understand the different covenants in the bible, then you cannot understand the bible or anything christian. You claim it's a logical fallacy, but in fact it's a product of your ignorance and imagination if anything from the truth. The verses you quoted were not Christians doing things, they were Jews doing things, the bible itself makes this clear. Christians didn't even come about until the new testament and new covenant with Jesus- after his death and resurrection. If you do not understand that, then there is nothing about the christian religion you can properly understand.
The new testament is the new covenant. Grouping it to the old testament is little more then a history lesson in what happened and how it came to where it is.
As for varying morality, this is what we are seeing now anyways. If you ask 20 different people from different parts of the world a question on morality, you are likely to get 20 different answers to the meaning of the question or the moral obligation
Once again, you are full of bullshit and taking things into your own context and not the context presented. And for some reason, you seem to think you know what I believe in or think without me ever saying anything about it.
No, genocide is not justified at all. What you are reading is only saying that it happened because Moses made it happen. It doesn't say god made it happen or that it should happen every day. God told Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites, not to kill all the children or women or anything. Moses came up with that on his own. And to that effect, it is read as a history lessen that it happened, not that it's allowed to happen or that it should happen again.
Anything about justification or compassion or loving or whatever is nothing more then your ignorance reading into it and taking things completely out of context. IF you would have read the entire chapter instead of what your parroting from some website, and have the slightest ability to comprehend what you read, you would have seen this because it's obvious from the start. Numbers 31:1-2 simple says The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." Moses ordered the how and what came after, not God. He did so by using the curse God placed on the Israelites as the justification not because God told him to. Hell, you even quoted his personal justification for his orders. If god would have told him to, he would have said God commanded something to be done.
I'm not even going to bother with that page. While it does bring out some technical aspects that have some merit, it presupposes the mistaking of context in which you have already made. And yes, this is obvious by the quotes mentioned for the reasoning of his undertaking in creating the site. As I said before, all that God ordered Moses to do was to take vengeance. Moses did that under his own command and thought process and it should be viewed as nothing more then a historical "this happened" type of verse. It definitely does not say it was ok, nor does it say that God ordered it to happen or anything that you attempted to claim.
I'm not sure anyone has asked you to be a christian, I certainly have not. However, it seems that your reasons are your own ignorance and inability to understand context and the written words in front of you. Perhaps you should take my advice and read the bible before making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps you should found your beliefs about the religion on something that is real and within reality. You know, reality is that thing that doesn't cease to exist when you do.
You do not know what I have or haven't done or what moral qualms I do or do not have. Quit pretending that you do. As I already stated, I do not believe the chapter says
I'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone. In grade school when we heard of motherfucker, we had a saying that I'm sure most everyone else has probably heard, Mother fucker I may be, but the mother I fuck, isn't the mother of me. Basically, if you're married with children, you can be a motherfucker, if you like milfs, you're a motherfucker (could be anyways), or if you're just being insulted generically, your a motherfucker, and all this is without a bit of incest being involved. And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often, it's hard to find a single woman of legal age that hasn't had a kid or two unless you're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot.
It doesn't hurt the idea of alternative medicine any when you have political forces railing on the pharmaceutical industry as being dishonest or in it only for profits leading to many others claiming that they only treat-not cure illnesses because that's where the money is. It opens the door for the eternal optimism that the secret cure the pill makers don't want you to know about really works.
Then you have idiots claiming that Native Americans never had cancer or that isolated tribes in Africa never had a recorded case of diabetes before the white man met them. Of course this is ignoring the fact that they had no way of checking those things until the outsiders met them. But hey, if it pushes their point, then what the hell, I guess it's fair.
It's alright, I was irritated by other things when I read your reply so I probably took it a little to far.
Actually, this is mostly a state by state governed issue but generally, the only limit outside of cost is a one year waiting period for preexisting condition coverage. In my state, that isn't even allowed if the company changes insurance providers and you purchase your policies through your work. And in the case of costs, the provider cannot increase your premiums if your a new hire within the 90 day limit or enroll during the open enrollment for at least one year after. And ot make things a little more clearer or obfuscated (depending on how you look at it), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HPAA) which is a federal law mandates that no waiting period be applied to anyone with a preexisting condition who leaves a group plan for any other coverage plane. This means that if you are fired or lose your job which you purchased your insurance through, or if you were a member of a club or organization (our local chamber of commerce offers both HMO coverage and indemnification coverage options to all members) which offered coverage under a group plan and left it for some reason, any provider you move to cannot deny coverage or require a waiting period because of a preexisting condition.
OF course, those are the rules in my state with the exception of the HPAA which should be nationally. Unfortunately, the HPAA does not protect private policy holders when they move coverage but there are still some companies that will cover preexisting conditions. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is one that I believe has a no fault- no waiting- policy that covers preexisting conditions.
If you are looking at 20 years or so into the future, may I suggest that you create a Heath Savings Account and purchase some sort of catastrophe insurance as a supplemental program. The advantages of a HSA is that you can move the funds before taxes apply which saves the hassle of claiming medical costs on your return or not having enough out of pocket costs to benefit from claiming them. As I mentioned before, the HPAA doesn't cover private policy holders so you are probably in a catch 22. The catastrophic insurance would/could provide coverage for your preexisting condition if something happened and your existing coverage faltered (lost jobs and/or couldn't afford premium or company goes out of business or whatever). In my state, the law used to be that a provider couldn't cancel coverage for non-payment while a patient was hospitalized and there was a grace period after before they were allowed to cancel coverage to give the patient a chance to come current in their premiums. However, I'm not sure if this is still true or if any other states have this rule/law.
Perhaps if you would concentrate on what I said instead of what you think you know, you would have payed attention to the "WCT" and the "WPPT" which is where the DMCA and anti-circumvention laws come from. It's neither part of the Berne Convention or WTO (TRIPS).
TRIPS is a WTO agreement not WIPO and the Berne convention is way before WIPO has come around. BTW, the WTO is where some of the trade advantages come from but the majority of them go through WIPO agreements which can be both executive agreements as well as treaty obligations.
Maybe this and this will help you a little.
Again, your ignorance is a shining example of idiocy. The verse you quoted is taken out of context. As other places in the bible indicate, what a person does with their body is up to them. This means that you can't force yourself onto a woman and a woman can't force herself onto a man. There is no rape involved here. In the bible, the term used for getting married was taking a wife. It was meant by mutual consent or some law of the land which made it happen (IE. buying a slave for a wife or making a deal with some family for a wife.) However, whether or not she put out was completely up to her even though the bible says that not having sex with your husband or wife when they want it is a sin. The bible also makes it clear that you are not to be with a married person and you are not to kill the husband of someone to take her as your wife.
The verse you quoted is not permission to plunder a village and steal the women after murdering their family, it's permission to ignore the other rules of conduct so if someone has lost their family due to war in which you participated and won, and you found her attractive, you could marry her without violating god's will. IF you notice, there is a part that allows you to let her go if your not satisfied with her.
What is the biggest cause of divorce today? No sex life is. It amplifies all of the other problems and may be a cause of some of the problems but not having a sex life does cause divorce as it encourages cheating and infidelity, creates hostile moods in which money problems become more of a problem, it creates issues concerning trust, even if it's all imaginary. You simply do not understand what you are reading and have not read more then what someone else has put out there for you to pretend you know it all. If you have read the bible, then you are one dumb mother fucker because it seems that you are forgetting about everything that gives it context.
I hope you understand that the DMCA and Anticircumvention laws in the US are a result from the WIPO "WTP" and "WPPT" treaties and not because of some industry lobbyist right? While the industry lobbyist may have helped craft the treaties and did play a role the penalties of the legislation, it was all required by two treaties that most of the world signed onto including Canada.
Canada signed onto the WTC and WPPT treaties in December of 1997. They haven't been able to ratify them or enter into force since then, but they are signatories and because of that, they are enjoying some trade status (with the US as well as Europe and other areas) that wouldn't otherwise be offered to them.
If you really want balance or something, then you need to convince your government to change the treaties and to get other nations to sign on to them. Otherwise it will be nothing but your country attempting to implement some part of the treaty and other member states criticizing them for not being able to do so.
Well, at least under the current death panels, you can get indemnity insurance which would cover treatment/illness regardless of what any HMO decides. You can also get treatment outside the HMO by either charity, private grant, or paying for it yourself without fear of facing jail time for doing so as the current proposals have decided was in your best interest. Your also not currently taxed to hell and back for carrying better insurance then the government equivalent of an HMO.
It's real easy to bitch and complain about something being unpopular when you ignore all the reasons why it's unpopular.
Yes, I understand that. But the out of state business must have more of a presences then what would be similar to a typical mail order house as the two cases I pointed out explain.
I also want to apologize for the name calling and measures I took to get your attention. I sort of felt like it was reciprocal in nature but I should have been able to make my case clear without resorting to that. It didn't really add anything to the discussions even though my failed attempt was to get you to notice what was being missed.
Best wishes,
Sumdumass
I think we have become a little more heated then a civil discussion should go. I replied to your other threads and took the time to point out where I still think you were wrong. You were mislead by information gathered somewhere else, and I failed to properly correct your understanding of that information. I think we should just leave it at that before it turns into a hate fest for no real reason. You were correct in your understanding of the B&O tax, however, as I attempted to state, the situation is very different that that understanding doesn't apply here. I think we were arguing two very separate issues without fully understanding what the other was attempting to say which made things -not so productive.
Yawn, you were ignoring it because I was telling you this all along. And no, I wasn't arguing that the B&O tax couldn't reach outside the borders of Washington state, I said specifically "Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in."
Dude, It's not like the record has disappeared or something. I would go through the trouble and link to all that I have said but fuck, just hit the parent button and reread what you failed to read previously.
Do not sit there and attempt to claim I said something that the record clearly reflects wasn't said. I understand, someone gave you wrong information and this is a topic you are passionate about. Just admit you were wrong, you understand the real facts now, and lets move on. You are not going to save any face by claiming I did something totally different then what happened. Unlike a he said she said argument and third party renditions, we have a record that can be accessed right in front of us.
Read the above, reread the above, and do not bitch about me being an ass this time. I have attempted to explain that several times over since my first reply to your first reply and you have ignored the fact that they were separate companies. Whenever you would mention Boeing or Ford, I have made the case that they aren't the same because MS and MSLI aren't the same. Hell, I even asked you several times to explain why Washington has not went after them if you were correct. If you would have done a little research into that, I wouldn't have had to tell you 7 or more times that they are separate companies.
And I never said that wasn't the case, I said, and you are acknowledging this with your statement here, that the MS case is different and they will not apply.
Actually, it's you that does not know what this law can and cannot do. The problem which you are completely ignoring is that Washington state only has a set limit of jurisdiction in which is can pass laws that effect entities outside their control. MSLI is one of those entities outside of their jurisdiction and no matter how much ignoring that fact you want to do, it doesn't make you right.
Actually, up until now, I have been telling you that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax a "company" that is outside it's borders and doesn't operate in the state. I was not wrong, you were just refusing to listen to what was being said. Either way, now you know that MSLI and MSTF are separate companies and one doesn't operate within Washington state.
I have tried and tried to tell you that they were separate companies and you were ignoring that while yelling Boeing and Ford. I know you were led to believe the situation was different, that is why I have been futilely attempting to explain to you that they are different and telling you to pay attention to the fact and cite me a court case with similar circumstances instead of the ford or beoing. OF course it doesn't help that we are in three threads now so one reply to all that was said is more or less 6 message between the two of us.
As for your position on the B&O tax, what I claimed was nonesense was the premise you were pushing in that Washington could tax a company that was incorporated and operated in another state without operating inside of Washington. B&O taxes are very real in many states, their connections to companies operating in other states too is very real. In fact, most states with an income tax will apply the very same principles. It wasn't the B&O tax I objected to, it was how you were claiming it would apply when you were mistaken on the facts even though I attempted multiple times to explain them to you.
Then you simply were not paying attention. I explained this a long time ago. It is here with "MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because
I think it's funny that you think your lack of knowledge or understanding is somehow my fault. Mark 16 is the story about Mary finding Jesus' tomb empty and what Jesus said to his disciples. The part you quoted is where he told the disciples to go and preach his message, and those are signs that would confirm the message. It doesn't say that anyone can or will heal someone, it says that those signs will follow as in some will be able to do that in his name.
Why don't you stop reading what you think you want to hear into the damn thing and actually attempt to understand it a bit. I'm betting that if you put half as much effort into understanding it as you are trying to demonize it, you would find that it's an entirely different beast then you think it is. Hell, you might even dismiss some of your prejudices while your at it. And that's all probably going to happen even if your not a believer.
Again, we find ourselves at a point in time when you are simply wrong and attempting to blame it on others. Perhaps you should stop you mental gymnastics and just leave it alone if you aren't competent enough to read and understand the thing.
Let me change that to reflect the reality we are facing. I'm only willing to something that punishes me now, if there is a punishment later that would be worse.
The problem is that there are increased costs with changing now. Sure, if it was competitive in pricing, it wouldn't be a punishment now and the benefits would likely encourage a change now. If you can and are willing to afford a change right now, then do it, but forcing more expensive energy costs onto other people is really a punishment unless they are willing to take on the burden just like you are.
Well, not really. You see, there is more then one way to skin a cat. Of course if your skinning the cat for a specific purpose, then your options are limited or different then just getting the job done.
Cats aside, if we were reducing pollution because of AGW, then we would be considering natural gasses as a pollutant and working to get rid of those. That doesn't necessarily mean that the amount of soot (smog, dust, whatever) in the air would be lowered too. However, if we were ignoring AGW and tackling the problems like breathable air in the city or safe drinking water, then we could use filters on emissions stacks that are far less complicated and expensive then ones needed to mediate the natural gasses too. In one case, we might have to stop using a source of energy like coal or something where in the other, scrubbers would be sufficient.
So again, it's about cost and availability which translates back down to punishment to some degree. If I could afford it and the sun would cooperate, I would switch entirely to solar power but that's not a reality I would be able to see in any near future. I don't think that it's anyone is anti change, they just do not want to down grade or have to pay more without a justification that works for them.
OMG, are you that stupid? Boeing doesn't have subsidiary corporations operating solely in different states. And for the ones they do have, only the amount of business conducted within the state is taxed. Now think about this. Suppose Boeing operated in all 50 states and all 50 states have a 3% gross receipts tax and a B&O tax just like Washington does. Seriously, think about that, now at 3% (I know Washington may be a different number but your same principle applies and 3% is just illustrative) times 50 states, then 150% or gross revenue would be needed to satisfy their B&O tax obligation. How in the fuck would any company supposed to be able to do that? They can't take in more money because it's subject to the same taxes. 150% of $10 would have the same effect as 150% of $20, that is to say that no matter how much they brought in, they would be 33% short in meeting their tax obligations. And this is without even mentioning costs and so on.
Do you really think things work the way you think they do, or do you think you should take this as an opportunity to find out a little more about the situation? In your next paragraph, you do admit that it's limited to the activities within the state as with the background of the Boeing case. However, Boeing did not incorporate into a separate company when it left the state, it's the same company which is different from the MS situation.
You are missing a key point here. MS is incorporated and operates in Washington, MS licensing is incorporated and operates in Nevada. They are in fact, for all legal purposed, two completely separate companies. This makes it significantly different then Boeing because Boeing remained the same entity and kept a portion of the entity within the state. MS is not the same entity as MSLI and MSLI does not operate in Washington State.
The problem here is that you are looking at the word Microsoft in the name and assuming they are the same legal companies. They are not, they are completely separate entities and the extent of MSLI's presence in Washington equates the the equivalent of a mail order house even though Microsoft corp operates within Washington. This is further obfuscated because the product that MS sells is basically a copyrighted set of code. Now MS can sell the rights to reproduce and distribute the code to MSLI for basically nothing (Even less then the cost of producing the code because MSLI is owned by MSTF and profits from MSLI would be deposited with MSTF as a share dividend) and MSLI can in turn license the code for whatever it wants- independent of operations going on in Washington. This further decreases Washington State's jurisdiction because these abilities are granted within federal law as well as backed by the US constitution giving congress the power to make laws governing copyright.
Your calling me dense, I already looked it up and told you that things are not how you think they are. You are ignoring the differences like the fact that MSTF and MSLI are completely separate companies and one of them does not even have a presence in Washington or operate within it and yet you are completely ignoring that. Like I said before, look at the facts, not what you want to think but look at what is actually going on.
Again, pay attention to the detailed, I never said the tax wasn't real, I said it doesn't apply and that the circumstances involving Microsoft and Microsoft licensing are different then those in Boeing and Ford Motor comp. That's not a hard concept for anyone half way competent to apprehend. I even attempt to spell out the differences and you are still ignoring it. I guess all I can say is that you are going to be completely disappointed when things do not work out like you think they are.
And I will say it one more time, find me a court case where the facts are the same and your position was upheld. So far you have not, you cannot, and yes, I have looked and attempted to find them myself, they simply do not exist. I do not need to go to Washington and try anything, we have MSTF and MSLI already doing it and guess what, your claim is not working out. It hasn't worked for over 13 years and they are attempting to change the law in the state to include sales within the state but seem to be struggling at best with that.
So show me the cases in which the facts are all the same. Do not sit there and call me lazy for not being able to find anything that backs up your assertion, you made the assertion, so you back it up. And before you do that, educate yourself on a few key things like MSTF and MSLI being completely separate companies and how MSLI does not operate within the state of Washington.
I think it's sort of telling when you have failed to back up your assertion and yet you want to criticize me in less then polite means. Well, I'm calling you on the table here, put up or shut up. Find out the fact surrounding MS and MSLI, find a case that is similar or the same, and present it here. And no, Boeing and Ford are not similar or the same. The facts are completely difference.
You might want to ask yourself something though, if things are the way you think they are, then why has MS been allowed to operate this way for more then 13 years while you continue to cry and scream about their wrong doing with neither the state or any municipality taking legal action against them? I'll give you a hint, it's because you are wrong.
I think we are about done here. You have shut your ears and are just repeating the same incorrect dribble and not even remotely understanding what I said. I'm not sure if that is because I'm not a good teacher or if your just that incompetent. Lets just assume the fault is mine for now but pay close attention to what I mention in the following reply.
There are all sorts of real laws on the books that cannot be enforce in every situation. That is fact. Lets take murder for instance, very few states have laws saying when it's ok to kill someone but most of them have laws saying it's illegal to do so. However, when someone attacks you screaming they are going to kill you and in the course of you struggling to save your life you end up killing the attacker, they cannot convict you of murder (well, they can but federal tort will turn it over on appeal so it's pointless for them to try). Most municipalities have laws forbidding jaywalking (crossing the street against a signal or outside of a marked cross walk). However, they cannot convict you of jaywalking if you did it because a todler was walking into traffic on the other side of the street and you jaywalked in order to save him from danger and harm. This is well established within our legal system as doctrine called necessity. This means that the circumstances made violating the law necessary because the alternative would have been worse. In some cases, escaping from prison has been held as necessary and the escape charges were dropped against prisoners who broke out of jail. What differentiates the allowed from the not allowed is the specific circumstances surrounding the violation. If you were to walk up and kill someone, you would be charged with and convicted of murder, if you jaywalk, you can be charged with and convicted with jaywalking, if the situation was different, the law wouldn't have applied.
So, hopefully, now you can understand that the circumstances and specifics of a case means certain laws can apply and sometimes they can't. In fact, the entire principle of law is this way where certain facts surrounding something can make something legal, illegal and something illegal legal. The facts surrounding the situation can make a law apply or excuse the law from applying. That's a simple fact of our legal system no matter how hard you want to ignore it.
The two cases you mentioned, Boeing and Ford, both have circumstances significantly different then MSLI and MSTF. As I have mentioned in each other thread/post, this is a very real fact that you cannot ignore. It's probably the very real fact to why Washington state has allowed MS to operate without paying the tax since 1997 and no one complained until 2006 or so when their government spending started out performing gross receipts. Now if things were the way you think they are and everything is the same color of fruit and all fruit tastes like an apple, then why has MS been allowed to get aw
I guess the embarrassing parts are embarrassing for you. Well, get ready for some more because I seriously do not know why you would think that just because a book says one person who has supernatural powers did something and had a specific outcome, that we should think that regular people doing it would have the same outcome. Seriously, the bible says Jesus is the son of god and worked miracles, not that you should teach med students to parody him. Here is just more of your obvious non-understanding of the bible and what it says. As for Genesis, who cars if it is allegory or not. I'm not here to defend the bible, I'm here to show how silly you are acting and that you have just as little of a clue as the people you are attempting to demonize. However, that's unimportant to the point because no one ever said religion has to be right or correct, they said you have the freedom to practice any religion you want or to not practice is at all and no government in the US can force either approach onto you. Hell, the bible could say that you are a hero to mice and it wouldn't make a difference in anything when the schools start saying you are not.
And your point is what? I already stated that creation is not science and cannot be. However that is pointless because the problem isn't with creation, it's with how science is being taught by a government organization and ends up saying things about religion. If you would pay attention to more then yourself, you would have already known that because not only have I mentioned it several times over, Almost all of the people attempting to get statements about other theories or to have creation mentioned or to explains the weaknesses of evolution theory are doing so claiming the intent is to balance the negatives about religions that is being taught in the schools.
Radiometric dating does not prove evolution as in the parts in conflict with creation, parts like Speciation. Neither does the islands, or experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, or other organisms. Those do however, show that it is likely but it doesn't prove it.
You are suffering from the famous false dichotomy problem. Because all you have seen is black sheep, you think all sheep are black. However, it's even worse because it isn't even what you have seen, but what others claimed to have seen. You are putting a lot of faith in that what they tell you is right and everything else is wrong. In fact, you are acting just like the devout Christians who claim they are the only ones right.
And BTW, Speciation is not a testable law of evolution, and there are several scientific theories dismissing the idea of "All life descended from a single ancestor". In fact, the entire idea of a single ancestor species is not even testable. You also have a problem with the idea of Evolution is gradual being one of your laws of evolution. Haven't you ever heard of the punctuated equilibrium? Or horizontal evolution?
Boy, you seem to think you know it all, it is was so obvious, then why was it missed? Actually, the problem is that you couldn't defend your position against them.
Church elders? What ever gave you the idea I go to church? I'm actually against organized religion. You are assuming to much based on nothing you know. As for talk origins, if you were capable of critical thinking, you would see that all of the missing link examples fall into the interpreted categories I mentioned earlier and all of the examples of speciation require the changing or altering of a definition or the standing of a position that would seem ridiculous if applied liberally outside the one example. Again, think for yourself and quit repeating what others have told you.
Canines are not a ring species and you are making the mistake of ignorance while once again repeating something someone else has said without the slightest bit of investigation or critical thinking on your own.
Great Danes and Chihuahua's can interbreed. The problem you are attempting to show is that the modern teacup version of the Chihuahua cannot bread with Great Danes and be the host of the offspring. However, this is factually incorrect when stated as the breed of Chihuahua because the Chihuahua is actually a dog that can reach up 40 lbs or more. It was originally bread by the Aztecs and used for hunting deer. Modern Kennel clubs only place the 10lbs restrictions on the breed for "showing purposes", not the breed itself. Now here is what screws your assertion, the Chihuahua can be bread back from the smaller teacup versions to the larger 40 lbs+ dog without ever leaving the breed. It is simply factually incorrect to claim a Chihuahua and a great Dane cannot breed.
BTW, the only limitations for the great Dane breeding with the Chihuahua is mechanical, not biological. That is to say that either the one dog couldn't reach the organs to successfully inseminate the other or the other couldn't successfully carry the offspring to term because of the differences in physical size. With the larger versions of the Chihuahua, neither of this is a problem.
But hey, you remain convinced of the evidence, or lack thereof right?
If it was written into the constitution, then yes. And no, it's not being taught in school, it being shown that there are other beliefs about Abiogenises and evolution and that while some parts of Evolution is observable fact, not all of it is. You cannot say that Evolution is completely true and remain in the scientific mindset, not can you
Perhaps you should reexamine what a "substantial nexus" is and how it is applied within the law.
Anyways, here are a few supreme court cases involving the exact same thing we are talking about.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/386/753/case.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quill.html
You should note that ion both cases, the substantial nexus is cited but you are wrong in the Corporate headquarters. MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because MSLI is owned by MSTF is non-important in this distinction because under current law, federal, state, and yes, even Washington State laws, ownership of a corporation does not directly imply operation of the corporation and they are viewed as two completely separate entities. This is evident from bankruptcy laws in which MSTF or MSLI could go bankrupt without imposing any liabilities on the other. This is even true within the state of Washington.
I got to admit, you have heart, you just do not have all the information or the ability to competently process it.
And that view has been struck down by several courts. And the only way the view could be held in court is if they adopted a "throw back rule" (yes, do some research on it) which states that only tangible goods ships from within the state can be taxed as if the sale was made within the state. OF course this is not the case as the software installation media is not always shipped from within Washington and the volume licensing requirements do no require a CD (read tangible good) for each install.
I'm also still waiting for you to list a court case the state won where the circumstances are the same. You haven't done it yet, and you will not be able to. The two links you mention in the next paragraph don't even come close either.
And here is where you are wrong. In both of those cases, the activities in question which the state made the B&O tax applicable was over goods shiped or delivered from within the state by companies operating outside the state but with a presence in the state. With the MSLI situation, nothing is shipped from the state and MS doesn't sell the media directly itself, it only sells the tangible goods through authorized resellers which escape MS selling within the state. Nothing gives the state of Washington the jurisdiction of the state that they held in the Boeing or or ford motor company cases you mention. You lawyer will probably tell you this, but attention to details is a requirement of understanding laws. You are extremely confused and ignorant on this and should shut up before making yourself look even worse.
Here is a break down in a more easily understandable method. Lets say you have two separate companies, Company A and Company B. Lets say each company owns a subsidiary company Aa and Bb. Lets also say that both subsidiary companies are located in Nevada and both parent companies are located in the same state (Washington). Now both companies conduct business with their subsidiary companies but with a minor difference in their mode of operation. Company Aa sells products and ships them from company A's warehouse. Company Bb sells the same products but ships them from a clearing house in China and only sells to resellers except with bulk licensing to companies through what would fall under "federal Mail order" laws. Under Washington's B&O law, or any state laws for the matter, only company Aa and company A can both be within the Jurisdiction of the state (Washington) because their activities are not sufficiently separate. With company B and Bb, the acti
Lol.. I never said the tax isn't real or isn't applied. I said it has jurisdictional boundaries and wouldn't apply to a separate corporation operating in another state no matter what ties to a parent corporation it has. Like I said, name some of those cases and we will quickly see that the facts within them are different from this.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Those arguments have been made and supported many times over. In fact, they have probably been upheld more then they have been overturned. The problem here is that you are not recognizing the corporate structure of the separation of companies that the law allows.
I never said the tax is not a reality, I said it doesn't apply because of the circumstances surrounding the two entities. The only way you can think my arguments aren't worthy is if you are willingly skipping over relevant facts or are completely clueless about the corporate structure and the separate of states.
Like I said before, show me the cases you talk about where the circumstances are substantially the same. You cannot and instead of me going to Washington, why don't you just look at MS who has been using this legal maneuver since 1997 without any objections until Washington state started spending more then it took in. And those objections are not even legal objections or Washington State would have already taken them to court. No state will allow any company or person to skip out on paying taxes when they know they are in the right to collect them. There is a reason why you are here 13 years later complaining about the situation and the state has done nothing about it. 13 years in state legislature and nothing at all has been done about it, and to further the issue at hand, the new law purposed would only tax MS for the business done within the state which is in line with what I have said.
You can blame it on greed or corruption within the state, but the bottom line is that if there was a legal footing, then MS would be paying the tax right now or in court defending against it. I'm sorry that you are confused and ignorant of the way subsidy corporations operate but your ignorance does not make you correct.
This is complete nonsense. The state of Washington only has jurisdiction within the state of Washington. It cannot tax money that was earned and stays in another state. Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in. This is true for a business or individual. If you move to Oregon, Washington has no legitimate right to tax you unless you enter Washington for work or move back. This is true for every state. The only time it comes into question is when someone or some company physically moves to another state while still claiming residency within the original state, then their income is still taxable to a certain extent.
Where MS is legal in this issue is that it's licensing division is a completely separate incorporation operating in a completely separate state under the laws of incorporation for that state. The fact that they are a subsidiary of Microsoft is irrelevant as the current law creates a separation.
The constitution sets the limits of the powers of jurisdiction of the states to within their own borders. It doesn't allow taxes or imposts of any kind to be levied against people and companies operating within another state unless they do business within the state itself. And to that point, it is limited to the amount of business done within the state unless congress agrees to some sort of agreement or compact with the other state. The limit is not on sales tax at all, it's on the sovereignty of the states. If Other states, decided to tax all activity committed in other states by companies with a presence in their own state, it would be impossible for any company to operate within more then one state and make a profit.
I do not know why you are concentrating on a sales tax, the issue isn't taxes in general, it's jurisdiction. The State of Washington has no legal authority over a Nevada corporation operating in subsidiary to Microsoft. The B&O tax is only aplicable to activities outside the state if it was committed by the same company as which is located within the state. This means if you stated "Jane Q. Public software sales" in Washington and did work in California, you would be taxed in Washington on the B&O rate. However, if you created a separate company in California and incorporated it under their laws, lets call it "Jane Q. Public software sales of California", your activities in the state of California wouldn't be subject to the Washington State B&O tax. It would be subject to any California taxes but that's another story.
Like it or not, a subsidiary entity incorporated and legal in another state is for all intents and purposed an separate company operating within that other state. It doesn't matter who owns what or who the parent company/entity is, it's completely separate and within the sole jurisdiction of the other state except whe