Lol.. what is flamebait about that. Everyone knows public employees are in the union and you cannot fire them for reasons not outlined in the conteact.
To finish your one sided connversation a month later, it would be-
"What? He filed a grievance with the union" "What do you mean he gets his job back with back pay?" "So hard hard will it be to get that into the next contract?" "So it won't happen. Expect more of the same- we cannot do anything unless we get competent users who follow rules unless we lock everything down, but then they cannot get any work done"
No, the term people and its derivitives has been ruled in court to include corporations. There is a huge difference in how you are attempting to use it.
The antithesis to your position is that a law which says no person can fraudulently advertise product for use they cannot fullfil would not bar corporations from doing so.
The twist is the identical twins. They are showing that the more similar that the genes are, the more likely the have the same or similar gut flora. And the opposite seems to be the case- the more dissimilar genes are, the more likely the gut flora would be dissimilar.
The use of twins raised by the same parents means they should be exposed to similar enviroments without age separating them. So the takeaway is not really microbes in the gut passed on from mom, but that genes influence the gut flora when two people are exposed to similar enviroments. Thus genes passed on can influence the microbes in the gut that remain and thrive or not.
Except that not all calories entering the body are used or stored by the body and some that do, have different effects in the process as well as people affecting the process directly themselves.
This can get far too complicated for a post here butsome keys are metabolism, carbohydrates verses fat (think adkins diet), water soluable and fat soluable fiber. If diet and excercise was that simple, there would be one diet plan that works for everyone.
So to your finacial example, think of part of the intake being stock options and profit sharing eith different tax implications for everyone.
I'm not sure which is worse- that you are capabble of imagining my in granny panties while masturbating or that you spent so much time doing it that you have all the details like the panties belonging to a sister all worked out. And yet you somehow finding this fantasy of yours more constructive than explaining a missed point is telling a lot more about you.
Lets do some psyc 101 on this. Describe your relationship with your mother. Did she hug you enough? Not enough? Too much? Or just right like you really like it? How about your daddy?
lol.. It never was the government's choice to stop people from associating or speaking. There was never a need to legalize anything- just remove artificial restrictions which were unconstitutional and not supposed to be in place in the first place.
Or are you trying to say that the supreme court is corrupt and on the payroll of rich people? I highly doubt that considering some of the rulings being made.
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's. They can pool together in order to get people who promise to ride unicorns backwards to congress twice a year if they want. All they are doing is getting a message out and if people like it, they will vote for them. If they do not, they will not vote for them. The Udall Gardner race is a good example of this. Despite tons of outside money actually misrepresenting and lieing about Gardner's positions (banning birth control), they like Gardner's message better and elected him instead.
I can see why you posted as AC. I wouldn't want anything so ill informed associated with me either.
Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under. People working for the corporation can do something illegal and those people can and do receive jail time. This concept of expecting corporations to go to jail is about the same as expecting the wife of a bank robber to go to jail simply because her lifestyle was raised while the bank robber spent the money he stole. It is akin to wanting to put the father of some 20 year old kid in jail because the kid deals drugs and pays rent to live in the detached garage.
In other words, your premise is lost on reality because you fail to see the reality of the situation. Corporations do no act, the people within them do act. Those people, when they get caught breaking the law, can and do go to jail. Therefore, it is a complete fallacy that they are people who can't be jailed.
If Ted Cruze is saying the opposite of what you want done, then I'll start listening to him.
The supreme court did not rip the first amendment at all. It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs. It said that people who have already pooled together for other reasons can spend their resources on speech too.
Stopping that from happening is in fact denying free speech to those people in the same way you think it is bad. When people cannot pool their resources together to speak about their candidate or against another candidate, they have lost their ability to make speech that has any impact. This has nothing to do with corporate donations- when you tell people or corporations which are run by people and owned by people, that they can have all the free speech they want except when you do not agree with it or the way they are speaking- you have ripped the first amendment yourself.
And I guess that is why he is worried sick about it. If the wrong people get elected, he may end up sharing his inheritance with the government when they change the estate tax.
Not having to file or pay taxes on a large sum of money is likely good cause to attempt to avoid electing people who will make you pay taxed on those funds.
Oh, and maybe we should get google to forget those and all those other stories it brings up when searching for businesses that left California. Or maybe, we can close our eyes and ignore it all and nothing can happen right?
Well, to be fair, he said not only will infrastucture to be able to handle x, but people will be doing x in sufficient numbers.
Now I do not think x or video is a good thing. Many people are just plain ugly or not as charismatic as they can be with writings. I think a shift in this direction will take a lot of the allure of 9 million friends who cannot even remember your name away from social media. And I bet that if there was market for it, Google would likely be in it first with some youtube google+ hybrid BS.
Ehh.. i don't know. I'm not aware of any detailed accounts from the treaty's development process. I do know that Europe signed and ratified it before the US did. In fact, most all US copyright laws changed after 1930 something (i forget the exact date but remember it started right around WWII time frame) was at the behest of Europe and to comply with treaties we joined. Even the sonny bono act was to satisfy a treaty with Europe.
I was going to referencevthe same thing. WIPO actually existed before the DMCA in casse anyone wants to blame the US for forcing its laws on the rest of the world and is the reason all these other countries try to pass DMCA style laws from time to time.
Umm.. you mean they had proper and effective regulation?
I'm not sure what your point is other than that. As I said, there is all sorts of wrong regulation so you need to ensure the proper and most effective regulation.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but it seems like you think you are contradicting me but then assert the main principle of my post. Can you help a confused idiot out?
It would take a constitutional amendment in order for congress to lose it's ability and power over D.C.. The cited law only established a way for D.C. itself to control most of it's own business.
Think of it to be more like a go away kid you are bothering me law. It frees congress up for whatever they think is important- even if that seems to be nothing.
I hope you realize that the stock market collapse and great depression was largely the fault of government regulation in the first place. It all started with the Grain Futures Act and hit a turning point with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929. This is largely why credit was overextended, we were producing surplus commodities, and deflation existed in the first place.
So a bigger point is that regulation if it exists, should be proper and fiting. Or in other words, over regulation hurts us, improper regulation hurts us, under regulation seems to hurt us, so care for the proper and most effective regulation must be taken.
No, not really. The 13 colonies became 13 countries after the revolutionary war. These 13 countries then surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a federal authority for specific purposes. Those specific purposes have been stretched, distorted and ignored but without it, the state's which is unique to the US as state as in nation state does mean country at the time we started using the word, would be the only legitimate power of government.
The fact that people do not know or understand that is depressing. But then again, if you say states rights, or point to the bill of rights where it actually shows it (9th and 10th amendments), you are called a racists and discussion is promptly shut down by those big government folks.
So from your post, i get that the intent of studying this is for government and politicians to produce, control, or cure the damage from internet mems?
And the problem is only that they won't let you know about it?
I guess the election last night changed a lot of things. Or maybe i just started paying attention to hoe this could be acceptable.
Fairfield, franklin, licking and pickaway counties that i know of.
I thought it was supposed to be part of the standardization law that was enforced this last election. Perhaps i'm wrong on that. Will check when i get near a computer later and not posting from phone. If not, i'll take video of it next time and post it somewhere. I was under the impression itcwas state wide.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. what is flamebait about that. Everyone knows public employees are in the union and you cannot fire them for reasons not outlined in the conteact.
Welcome to the world of unions.
To finish your one sided connversation a month later, it would be-
"What? He filed a grievance with the union"
"What do you mean he gets his job back with back pay?"
"So hard hard will it be to get that into the next contract?"
"So it won't happen. Expect more of the same- we cannot do anything unless we get competent users who follow rules unless we lock everything down, but then they cannot get any work done"
No, the term people and its derivitives has been ruled in court to include corporations. There is a huge difference in how you are attempting to use it.
The antithesis to your position is that a law which says no person can fraudulently advertise product for use they cannot fullfil would not bar corporations from doing so.
The twist is the identical twins. They are showing that the more similar that the genes are, the more likely the have the same or similar gut flora. And the opposite seems to be the case- the more dissimilar genes are, the more likely the gut flora would be dissimilar.
The use of twins raised by the same parents means they should be exposed to similar enviroments without age separating them. So the takeaway is not really microbes in the gut passed on from mom, but that genes influence the gut flora when two people are exposed to similar enviroments. Thus genes passed on can influence the microbes in the gut that remain and thrive or not.
Except that not all calories entering the body are used or stored by the body and some that do, have different effects in the process as well as people affecting the process directly themselves.
This can get far too complicated for a post here butsome keys are metabolism, carbohydrates verses fat (think adkins diet), water soluable and fat soluable fiber. If diet and excercise was that simple, there would be one diet plan that works for everyone.
So to your finacial example, think of part of the intake being stock options and profit sharing eith different tax implications for everyone.
Sounds like you put a lot of thought into that.
I'm not sure which is worse- that you are capabble of imagining my in granny panties while masturbating or that you spent so much time doing it that you have all the details like the panties belonging to a sister all worked out. And yet you somehow finding this fantasy of yours more constructive than explaining a missed point is telling a lot more about you.
Lets do some psyc 101 on this. Describe your relationship with your mother. Did she hug you enough? Not enough? Too much? Or just right like you really like it? How about your daddy?
Why not explain the point that i missed too?
lol.. It never was the government's choice to stop people from associating or speaking. There was never a need to legalize anything- just remove artificial restrictions which were unconstitutional and not supposed to be in place in the first place.
Or are you trying to say that the supreme court is corrupt and on the payroll of rich people? I highly doubt that considering some of the rulings being made.
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's. They can pool together in order to get people who promise to ride unicorns backwards to congress twice a year if they want. All they are doing is getting a message out and if people like it, they will vote for them. If they do not, they will not vote for them. The Udall Gardner race is a good example of this. Despite tons of outside money actually misrepresenting and lieing about Gardner's positions (banning birth control), they like Gardner's message better and elected him instead.
I can see why you posted as AC. I wouldn't want anything so ill informed associated with me either.
Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under. People working for the corporation can do something illegal and those people can and do receive jail time. This concept of expecting corporations to go to jail is about the same as expecting the wife of a bank robber to go to jail simply because her lifestyle was raised while the bank robber spent the money he stole. It is akin to wanting to put the father of some 20 year old kid in jail because the kid deals drugs and pays rent to live in the detached garage.
In other words, your premise is lost on reality because you fail to see the reality of the situation. Corporations do no act, the people within them do act. Those people, when they get caught breaking the law, can and do go to jail. Therefore, it is a complete fallacy that they are people who can't be jailed.
If Ted Cruze is saying the opposite of what you want done, then I'll start listening to him.
The supreme court did not rip the first amendment at all. It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs. It said that people who have already pooled together for other reasons can spend their resources on speech too.
Stopping that from happening is in fact denying free speech to those people in the same way you think it is bad. When people cannot pool their resources together to speak about their candidate or against another candidate, they have lost their ability to make speech that has any impact. This has nothing to do with corporate donations- when you tell people or corporations which are run by people and owned by people, that they can have all the free speech they want except when you do not agree with it or the way they are speaking- you have ripped the first amendment yourself.
And I guess that is why he is worried sick about it. If the wrong people get elected, he may end up sharing his inheritance with the government when they change the estate tax.
Not having to file or pay taxes on a large sum of money is likely good cause to attempt to avoid electing people who will make you pay taxed on those funds.
I don't know about biblical in size but it certainly is not "not happening" or made up/bunk as suggested.
I agree. If only we could get these yahoos to believe it is all bunk too.
http://www.ocregister.com/arti...
http://moneymorning.com/2013/0...
http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
Oh, and maybe we should get google to forget those and all those other stories it brings up when searching for businesses that left California. Or maybe, we can close our eyes and ignore it all and nothing can happen right?
Well, to be fair, he said not only will infrastucture to be able to handle x, but people will be doing x in sufficient numbers.
Now I do not think x or video is a good thing. Many people are just plain ugly or not as charismatic as they can be with writings. I think a shift in this direction will take a lot of the allure of 9 million friends who cannot even remember your name away from social media. And I bet that if there was market for it, Google would likely be in it first with some youtube google+ hybrid BS.
Ehh.. i don't know. I'm not aware of any detailed accounts from the treaty's development process. I do know that Europe signed and ratified it before the US did. In fact, most all US copyright laws changed after 1930 something (i forget the exact date but remember it started right around WWII time frame) was at the behest of Europe and to comply with treaties we joined. Even the sonny bono act was to satisfy a treaty with Europe.
I was going to referencevthe same thing. WIPO actually existed before the DMCA in casse anyone wants to blame the US for forcing its laws on the rest of the world and is the reason all these other countries try to pass DMCA style laws from time to time.
Its a little more complicated than that. Third party aps can display ads and ad servers can get manipulated/hacked.
That should have been so secure, the CEO has to out himself as being gay.
Umm.. you mean they had proper and effective regulation?
I'm not sure what your point is other than that. As I said, there is all sorts of wrong regulation so you need to ensure the proper and most effective regulation.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but it seems like you think you are contradicting me but then assert the main principle of my post. Can you help a confused idiot out?
It would take a constitutional amendment in order for congress to lose it's ability and power over D.C.. The cited law only established a way for D.C. itself to control most of it's own business.
Think of it to be more like a go away kid you are bothering me law. It frees congress up for whatever they think is important- even if that seems to be nothing.
I hope you realize that the stock market collapse and great depression was largely the fault of government regulation in the first place. It all started with the Grain Futures Act and hit a turning point with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929. This is largely why credit was overextended, we were producing surplus commodities, and deflation existed in the first place.
So a bigger point is that regulation if it exists, should be proper and fiting. Or in other words, over regulation hurts us, improper regulation hurts us, under regulation seems to hurt us, so care for the proper and most effective regulation must be taken.
No, not really. The 13 colonies became 13 countries after the revolutionary war. These 13 countries then surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a federal authority for specific purposes. Those specific purposes have been stretched, distorted and ignored but without it, the state's which is unique to the US as state as in nation state does mean country at the time we started using the word, would be the only legitimate power of government.
The fact that people do not know or understand that is depressing. But then again, if you say states rights, or point to the bill of rights where it actually shows it (9th and 10th amendments), you are called a racists and discussion is promptly shut down by those big government folks.
So from your post, i get that the intent of studying this is for government and politicians to produce, control, or cure the damage from internet mems?
And the problem is only that they won't let you know about it?
I guess the election last night changed a lot of things. Or maybe i just started paying attention to hoe this could be acceptable.
Fairfield, franklin, licking and pickaway counties that i know of.
I thought it was supposed to be part of the standardization law that was enforced this last election. Perhaps i'm wrong on that. Will check when i get near a computer later and not posting from phone. If not, i'll take video of it next time and post it somewhere. I was under the impression itcwas state wide.