Andy9o8

Ah, but it feels good.

Why do you hate trisexuals?

Sounds to me like it's a team effort. To some extent, yes. However, corporations do not vote in the exemptions or put them in. Think of it as parent/child. The parent may let the kid have access to the liquor cabinet and give him keys to the Porsche. Or the parent can say "no." Lawmakers can take requests. And lawmakers can so no. It's a little known fact that lawmakers and government are authorized to say "no" to corporations and big money donors. They may actually decide against lobbyists! Corporate influence is huge in government because government let's it be. I have no problem with corporations trying to grease the wheel. It's the acceptance of the grease by my fiduciaries that I have a big problem with. Many people have no idea just how much legislative language is actually (but quietly) ghost-written by corporations' lobbyists, or even their in-house staffs, and then submitted to friendly legislators, including members of Congress, who then adopt it in the language of bills and amendments they propose. I can't say a lot more for reasons of confidentiality, but I have direct personal/professional knowledge that it's a hell of a lot.

Legislative majorities, as well as executives (of both parties), like to come up with feel-good stuff to show their constituents they're doing their job. And both actively engage in social engineering. This is one example of it. I suppose there's some facial logic to it: drug addicts are more likely to be so messed-up from their drug use that it reduces their employability, thereby inducing them be be on welfare, etc..... That's not the motivation the constituents are thinking about, but it's enough to rationalize it and maintain plausible deniability of any other motives.....

Can you explain how this works? I was under the impression that your US Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate anything that comes before them, if they choose. Doesn't removing that fail some kind of constitutional sniff-test? NB: I'm no lawyer so please keep any response simple for me. Thanks John Your issue-spotting instincts are good. What you're referring to is known as "jurisdiction stripping", and it is permitted under a provision of the Constitution that gives Congress a certain amount of power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts from hearing certain kinds of cases. This power is not absolute; it has limits. Here's a handy synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping (Print it up and keep it in your pocket; you never know when you'll need it.)

You're being intellectually dishonest. You've weasel-worded the question to command an answer. Your X and Y are not equivalent to each other. No gay people are telling heteros that they should not marry people of the other sex, or expressing intolerance of people who wish to marry people of the opposite sex. They're simply telling other people to mind their own damned business. But of course you knew that when you phrased the question. Perhaps you've been in your self-imposed banning so long you've forgotten that there are those in here who will see it for what it is, and call you on it.

Got nothing to do with your post Tell everyone what If these same teachers would also throw down a picture of Mohammad I will shut up And just in case you STILL dont get it where is your tolerance? Why do people have to be such bigots when it comes to Chrisitanity??? [Wendy] I'm pretty sure the point was to use a symbol that would be sensitive to the students in that particular classroom; and most if not all of those kids in the class were probably Christians. That's what made the Jesus symbolism a relevant teaching tool. Had it been a classroom of mostly Jewish students an item of Jewish symbolism would have been the relevant teaching tool. [/Wendy]

so was this a trolling post, or were you actually sincere? Actually sincere. It's ridiculous to make the comparison of gay marriage and people marrying their daughters or dogs or whatever. It's literally an absurd argument. absurd is someone with your posting record suggesting other people get a life. No, it's not; stop being snarky. What is offensive is not knowing that the plural of reductio ad absurdum is reductiones ad absurdum. I mean, what the fuck, people; let's not be ignorami.

I don't dispute what you say; but it really just adds to my post; doesn't really subtract from it. Which is fine; we must appreciate the full picture.

What's your metric? I thought the comparitor was there. Well, the stock example I often use is the guy raising a family who gets laid off from his job. In Canada, UK, AUS, NZ, Japan or every single country in Europe, he and his family still have health care coverage. In the US, he and his family lose their employer-provided health insurance. Now they either buy their own for the whole family, which is pretty expensive given that Dad's outta work and now temp'ing at McDonald's, or they go uninsured. Oopsie, during that gap, Dad has a heart attack, or Mom gets breast cancer, or they're in a car accident.... Now the question becomes: are they better off if they live in Detroit, or just across the border in Windsor? Hmmm.... So yeah, there are lots of examples when having US health care is better than having Canadian health care. And Canadians will be the first to point them out. But for a hell of a lot of under-employed middle-Americans slipping thru the cracks, something is better than nothing. (That sentence is the Cliff Notes version of this post.) Middle-class American fiscal conservatives should be mad as hell. At least when Canadians' tax dollars get pissed away, they mostly get pissed away at home. When Americans' tax dollars get pissed away, it's for an aircraft carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf, and contributing disproportionately to other countries' security umbrella so their citizens can have their universal health coverage, while FoxNews bamboozles American blue-collar social conservatives into thinking they're better off with that. LOL, those are the real suckers P.T. Barnum was talking about.

So what? Viagra was originally invented as a heart medication. Things evolve.

This is the line for bread comrade. The line for healthcare is over there. Socialized health care while unemployed may not be ideal, but it's a damn sight better than no health insurance at all while unemployed.

There's a thread in Speaker's Corner about that.

I just said that; but of course, I charge by the word.

I can't comment about informal LOs however, I load organize for a number of events and boogies around the nation. I just read the waiver for one of the largest DZs in the Midwest and it clearly lists load organizers along with owners, managers, BOD, officers etc. etc. [even volunteers are listed]. I've had several conversations with the attorney who wrote and updates this waiver. He told me that most people who attempt to bring suite never get past the first interview after the apposing attorney reads the notarized waiver. He also stated that he often gets calls from the other attorney who refused to take the case, complimenting him on such a thorough and well written document. Yes, it has been tested in court and was upheld. I have a copy of the document and am happy to know LOs are specifically listed in such an awesome waiver. Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. I, too, have drafted or revised waivers for DZ clients to be as broadly protective as my warped imagination can fathom. But nothing is 100%; although I won't say more on that for obvious reasons. All I'm saying is it remains an open issue for consideration. But before I'd LO at a DZ, any DZ, I'd want the DZ's waiver to cover me. Be the lawyer you fear the other guy will be.

Employess can work elswhere No employee has a right to work there Like it or not, government in the US has been setting employee safety standards for workplaces since at least the early 20th Century. That's the legacy of the Trianlge Shirtwaist Company fire case, where many employees died in a fire because exits were blocked, exit doors were locked, no fire escapes, etc. So the govt stepped in and mandated fire doors, fire escapes, etc. Nowadays, of course, all public buildings must have those. By your standard, one could simply say that if people don't like working in a factory that doesn't have fire doors and fire escapes, well dammit, they don't have to work there. But of course that's not the standard we use; we have evolved the standard, and we enforce it via force of law.

Hard to say very broadly because each scenario is potentially unique. Keep in mind, as you read this, that "conspicuousness" comes under the general category of "fair notice". Along that line, the level of sophistication of the user would probably be a relevant variable. In the Netscape and Ticketmaster examples, the people at issue were "ordinary consumers" whose level of computer/website sophistication (or lack thereof) was taken into consideration when determining what was and was not conspicuous. A person with a great deal of computer and website expertise, especially one who makes a practice of hacking, may be reasonably deemed to be on notice that most every website has a TOS page that not only can easily be accessed, but if you're a hacker (or even just a "snooper"), ought to be accessed and read carefully before proceeding to hack or snoop - and thus if you still proceed, you do so at your own peril. Now let's take the sock puppet example. If said sock-puppeteer has been a member and frequent user of/poster on a website for many years, has been given many warnings about TOS violations by site administrators, has almost certainly seen others be given warnings about TOS violations many times, has even chided others on the site for "posting protocol" issues from time to time, and then has been expressly banned for TOS violations, and has even, thereafter, been expressly told by moderators to cease and desist in creating and posting via sock puppets - and then continues do do so nonetheless, I'd say it's pretty much a slam-dunk that he's most certainly under "fair notice" of the TOS he (ahem, or she) is violating.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage And in the Oxford definition, you deliberately edited-out this passage: http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/marriage Tsk tsk. That was pretty dishonest of you. But it's still fun having you back to be wrong again. GM was getting lonely.

Ah, post 145. Yeah, I missed it.

Mr. Feldman used the above scenario, as well as the general commentary on the Sydney incident to point out multiple points where the argument is valid that organizers may be found responsible for incidents that occur during say...bigways. By that standard, I suppose I'd worry whether anyone who does any informal organizing w/o acting as an agent of the DZ might not be personally protected by the waiver. Like, for example, if you were to visit some other DZ and just informally organize a wingsuit jump on which someone has an incident. Might depend on how the waiver's worded, or there might be other factors aside from that. I'm not really sure where this comes down, but it's something I guess we have to think about. Unfortunately.

Well, that's true to that extent, but it's not exclusively about such outlays. It's about things like a spouse's right to presumptive inheritance and the "marital share", the right to de-facto spousal medical power of attorney which hospitals often will honor for spouses but won't for non-married SO's, the right to be covered under a spouse's employer-provided health insurance. (I'll also mention the right to take the marital deduction from estate taxes; although some might argue that that's sort of an indirect govt outlay...)

In all fairness, you really must tell us: in what industry & in what capacity? Just thought we'd give you another chance to answer this direct question honestly.

...bringing you teen pregnancy since the days of the Flinstones.

There is no legitimate reason not to record votes by member every time. It's just not that cumbersome. If you make an exception for "routine" matters, then who gets to define what is and is not "routine"? What's routine and ministerial to me may be damned important to you. That aside, anything other than a single standard invites abuse, or even worse, the appearance of abuse. If a vote on routine stuff is truly unanimous, fine, say so. But if there are any nays or abstentions, those should be recorded by name. Would you tolerate your elected state or federal legislators doing it any other way? With all due respect, I agree that it's lame to say that people can attend meetings. And though I'm all in favor of web-camming the meetings, that's not an adequate substitute for recording votes, either. Sorry, but some constituents have lives and just don't have the time or opportunity to watch the meetings; but that doesn't diminish their entitlement to the information. This is really a no-brainer. Record the damn votes, all of them, and let's get on with it.

No it isn't I meant to say money. Damm typos. Well, it's similar. For example, it's not illegal to put a single coin on a train track and squish it when the train comes by. And it's not illegal to do that with a human egg, either. See?