When asked why he isn't signing any of the legislation from the GOP controlled House, he will say "Because they aren't sending me anything that's worth signing."
How soon do you think he will start saying this after the GOP House takes office in January?How soon will the president blame the GOP House for "failing to send any good legislation?"?
Welcome to Politics as practiced by both the major parties. Everything is the other party's fault.
As soon as the GOP sends legislation to:
Cut back on SS
Cut back on Medicare and Medicaid
Eliminate regulations on credit card, banking and investment controls
Eliminate mortgage interest tax deduction for middle class
Eliminate student loan protections from robber banks
I want to see that big red VETO stamp in action.How soon will the president blame the GOP House for "failing to send any good legislation?"?
I voted them in to stop Obama and repeal everything Obama has done so far...so I am positive Obama will veto every piece of legislation that come to his desk....If he don't...Old Harry Reid and the last strong hold of the Socialist Party will...
Well..the GOP has already stated they plan on trying to repeal all reforms Obama and Dems put in to help ordinary american. Why shouldnt Obama complain? the GOP complained when the Dems were doing their reforms..right? only the GOP can complain?How soon will the president blame the GOP House for "failing to send any good legislation?"?
How soon will the House blame Obama for vetoing their corporate welfare legislation schemes?John Boener will be hard up for the peoples' support then, think?
When they start sending him worthless crap that won't do anything for the American people or America. In other words...immediately. Common sense.
Probably the moment that they don't send any good legislation.
The thought that they will send any good legislation is hilarious.
they just did raise the gas tax cut taxs for the rich make you work until your 69 and then cut your ssi and youe medical you wanted it and you got it lol
Being a narcissist, he'll never see anyone else's ideas as good as his own.
Well Obama has a plan to cut 4 trillion in spending. What has the new Congress that has not been sworn it done lately.
within the first hour
Monday, January 23, 2012
Where can I find the entire traffic legislation?
I want to read all the laws about traffic in uk. Where can I find that online?Where can I find the entire traffic legislation?
There's A LOT of it! Here's a link to the various acts and regulations:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTra鈥?/a>Where can I find the entire traffic legislation?
Gov .uk has some of it but England is rather unusual.
You cannot get free access on the net of all English laws. How the hell can you know the law if it is not freely accessible?
It is just a filthy trick of England's evil criminal justice system.The pigs know the laws which you cannot get free access to and use this to their advantage. Lawyers get free access to the laws because they are lawyers. Then there is case law.
Only rich people can employ good lawyers.
It is just a great big game and you cannot afford to play.
There's A LOT of it! Here's a link to the various acts and regulations:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTra鈥?/a>Where can I find the entire traffic legislation?
Gov .uk has some of it but England is rather unusual.
You cannot get free access on the net of all English laws. How the hell can you know the law if it is not freely accessible?
It is just a filthy trick of England's evil criminal justice system.The pigs know the laws which you cannot get free access to and use this to their advantage. Lawyers get free access to the laws because they are lawyers. Then there is case law.
Only rich people can employ good lawyers.
It is just a great big game and you cannot afford to play.
How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
EXACTLY!!!!!How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
Same way they forced through the health care bill. They had the power to do anything they wanted to and showed they would use it. All of this republicans blocking this and that was all posturing. The real reason for no budget was hiding the all the new spending they were trying to work out.How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
They same way they shoved OBAMACARE down our throats.
So you could pass something that big yet not get a BUDGET DONE ?
I call BS.How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
Seems like you forgot about all the blue dogs who supported the tax cut extention.
Nice spin.
Didnt take that long for the DNC to invent that propaganda and get it posted here, did it?
Same way they forced through the health care bill. They had the power to do anything they wanted to and showed they would use it. All of this republicans blocking this and that was all posturing. The real reason for no budget was hiding the all the new spending they were trying to work out.How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
They same way they shoved OBAMACARE down our throats.
So you could pass something that big yet not get a BUDGET DONE ?
I call BS.How were Dems supposed to pass a budget in Oct when Reps blocked all legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts?
Seems like you forgot about all the blue dogs who supported the tax cut extention.
Nice spin.
Didnt take that long for the DNC to invent that propaganda and get it posted here, did it?
What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
i thought the democrat party was touting how unified they are, but it seems like
they sre split big time on this one!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
They're ideologically monolithic.
Several Democrats got elected by relatively American districts. Whenever their constituents learn what they're up to they have to spend several weeks pretending to be on the opposite side.
Abortion is not a medical procedure and if tax payer dollars start paying for the murder of innocent children somebody is gonna get beat the **** up.What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
The fringe left has most of the leadership roles in Congress but are getting huge push back by the more sensible representatives..
Seems as if some Democrats have Morals!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
There are some Democrats - despite the rhetoric put forth by conservatives - that are against abortion and/or they are representing districts which are largely against abortion and are afraid of losing support for their next election. Dems are unified in wanting health care reform - but this is a sticking point within that reform.
It may kill this thing in the end (Pardon the pun). They took abortion out to get it past the blue dogs and to the Senate. The Senate may put it back in or not but I've heard it mentioned the far-left of Pelosi's fragile colition will break ranks and not support it if it isn't put back in. If she puts it in, the blue dogs will walk out. It will have to be included in the final bill because the Democratic party bows at the alter of abortion which I do not understand....haven't they figured out how many Democrat votes they are killing?
A few Democrats are trying to take their party back from the Socialists.
Thank GOD there are still a few Democrat leaders who still have faith, values and morals...but you can see that there are only a few in the DNC....
Democrats aren't like Republicans. Democrats try to appeal to lots of different people, so there are lots of different opinions. The belief that Democrats are unified is mostly an invention of conservative media, a way of motivating conservatives to political action by scaring them with the threat of a devious and unified enemy. However, because Democrats are in favor of a "big tent politics" approach, they have much more experience compromising than Republicans. I don't think this rift will be as divisive as Republicans hope.
Democrats have never touted themselves as being unified on any issue. It is Republicans who march in lock step. Democrats are more of free thinkers.
there is no such party as the democrat party.
could be the nature of your confusion.
hope this helps...
but dig on the threat of physical violence by 'freedom fighter.'
not afraid of you bro...
They actually think for themselves and vote for what is best for the folks who elected them.
I know it is hard for a Republican to understand this.
nothing
they sre split big time on this one!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
They're ideologically monolithic.
Several Democrats got elected by relatively American districts. Whenever their constituents learn what they're up to they have to spend several weeks pretending to be on the opposite side.
Abortion is not a medical procedure and if tax payer dollars start paying for the murder of innocent children somebody is gonna get beat the **** up.What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
The fringe left has most of the leadership roles in Congress but are getting huge push back by the more sensible representatives..
Seems as if some Democrats have Morals!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
There are some Democrats - despite the rhetoric put forth by conservatives - that are against abortion and/or they are representing districts which are largely against abortion and are afraid of losing support for their next election. Dems are unified in wanting health care reform - but this is a sticking point within that reform.
It may kill this thing in the end (Pardon the pun). They took abortion out to get it past the blue dogs and to the Senate. The Senate may put it back in or not but I've heard it mentioned the far-left of Pelosi's fragile colition will break ranks and not support it if it isn't put back in. If she puts it in, the blue dogs will walk out. It will have to be included in the final bill because the Democratic party bows at the alter of abortion which I do not understand....haven't they figured out how many Democrat votes they are killing?
A few Democrats are trying to take their party back from the Socialists.
Thank GOD there are still a few Democrat leaders who still have faith, values and morals...but you can see that there are only a few in the DNC....
Democrats aren't like Republicans. Democrats try to appeal to lots of different people, so there are lots of different opinions. The belief that Democrats are unified is mostly an invention of conservative media, a way of motivating conservatives to political action by scaring them with the threat of a devious and unified enemy. However, because Democrats are in favor of a "big tent politics" approach, they have much more experience compromising than Republicans. I don't think this rift will be as divisive as Republicans hope.
Democrats have never touted themselves as being unified on any issue. It is Republicans who march in lock step. Democrats are more of free thinkers.
there is no such party as the democrat party.
could be the nature of your confusion.
hope this helps...
but dig on the threat of physical violence by 'freedom fighter.'
not afraid of you bro...
They actually think for themselves and vote for what is best for the folks who elected them.
I know it is hard for a Republican to understand this.
nothing
What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
I've heard of businesses that won't be able to afford the costs of any options under the new plan. What's the deal?What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Small Businesses? What are those grandpa?? - { What our grand kids will say }
This might help;
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/36鈥?/a>
You can ask questions about these and or make comments ect, without having to log in to anything. Very enlightening stuff.What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Just pray it doesn't passyamaha atv
Small Businesses? What are those grandpa?? - { What our grand kids will say }
This might help;
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/36鈥?/a>
You can ask questions about these and or make comments ect, without having to log in to anything. Very enlightening stuff.What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Just pray it doesn't pass
What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
some people want to ban so called viscious breeds of dog mainly pitbutts. i thank this is the stupidest thing that i have ever heard of. what about yall.What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
We live in Colorado and we were faced with a dilemma - give up our sweet dog to be euthanized or leave Denver. We chose to move. Our dog has never hurt anyone, would never hurt anyone - she just has unfortunate cheekbones and a boxy head. What if we couldn't leave? How humane is it to ask families to kill their pets when they haven't done anything?
I believe strongly in owner responsibility. People who's dogs attack should not only lose the animal but also be charged with assault or murder - in essence using the dog as a weapon. But we need to differentiate between a dog problem and a thug problem.
Breed bans do nothing but penalize responsible dog owners. People who seek to do awful things with animals - illegal things- don't give a crap about a law. They're not going to stop breaking a law because what they were using to break the law is illegal.
Plus breed bans are a slippery slope - we'll ban pits and pit mixes, say. Who decides what a dog is a mix of if the lineage is unknown? Shall we sacrifice boxer mixes, too, because they can look like a pit mix? What about American Bulldogs and mixes thereof?
Interestingly enough, most serious maulings and fatal attacks have one thing in common: the dog was unfixed male (of varying breeds - not just of pits). If we want to protect people, instead of banning or requiring seperate licensing of certain breeds, perhaps we should instead look at mandating spay/neuter.
as a child i was literally attacted by a cocker spaniel.who would have thought. now i own a pit bull and i couldnt ask for a sweeter, more gentle dog. all i can say is it's all in how you raise em'! if i was told to put her down or move, i'd move too!
There is no vicious breed of dog. And there is no dog breed called a pitbull (it's the American Staffordshire Terrier, or AmStaf).
I do too. I think that instead of prohibiting dogs that can be dangerous in the wrong hands (some breeds are a little more prone to being aggressive, tho I know that any dog can be), that owners should be moderated and possibly even need a liscense to own one of these breeds. It's nothing against the breed, but this would ensure that proper owners are caring for these rather than some idiot who wants their dog to be mean and aggressive. Don't ban the dog, ban the bad owners!What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
in my opinion:
BSL is wrong. They shouldn't be banning specific breeds, they should be banning specific people from having dogs period.
Perhaps people should have to have a license to own breeds that have more of a tendency towards violence. This would ensure only responsible owners would be able to have pitbulls, not idiots that plan on fighting them.
I think that all owners should be heavily penalized for any unwarranted dog bite..I don't believe it should be breed specific, but apply to all..
I mean BIG penalties, such as imposing a $5000 fine, and withholding driver's license until it is paid..that kind of penalty..
I also think there should be large penalties for aggressive dogs attacking other dogs...any breed, any time..
Right now, there are no such penalties, and such cases can only be heard in small claims court.
I believe hitting the wallet is the only way to get owners to be more responsible..
Its ridiculous. Lawmakers are the most misinformed people out there.
m'all thinks that it's people who breed dogs to be vicious. with rare exceptions an animal is not vindictive so figure it out. having a ban on certain types of owners is a better idea.
I like the idea of licenses for certain breeds. I also think that dog owners should be held liable for damages from their pets. If a parent can be held responsible for minors, then they same should occur with pets. And, I think that if you fail to keep your dog properly locked away (like that sad story in the news recently where the family dogs killed their 2-year old), I think that the dog owners should face criminal charges, manslaughter, neglect, something!
I agree with Dolly, good point.
I think we should have legislation about over breeding. I work in an Animal Hospital and we still hear about how someone wants their kids to experience the birth of puppies or kittens.
Then we look at the number of animals in shelters, being euthanized to make room for more strays, animals that are abused, abandoned etc.
I think we should make legislation that insists that pets be spayed or neutered. If we decrease population, we also decrease the agreesive characteristics which have been overbred.
I dont think that they should ban pit bulls. Its the people that make them mean. If they go and kill all the pit bulls those same people will fight other breeds. Its not the breed its how they are raised. We cant go killing all the breeds they decide to fight. If we do that then preaty soon they will be fighting labs, or goldens, or poms. We need to enforce the law about not fighting dogs.
a good video about the topic... http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/ it is graphic so yah..
BLS (breed specific legislation) is BS! Ban the foolish owners, the bad breeders, and have the media show the positive as well as the negative. (the media is so one sided, and some people believe everything they hear!)
I wish there was a way to ban certain people from owning them. That will not happen, so the breeds will get banned. There are too many idiots that own these type dogs and they will ruin it for everyone else.
In my opinion, I think the BSL's are a good idea. I mean, with Pits, Presa Canarios, and such, they don't have the tolerance that most breeds to. It has been proven that these dog's tempers will flare without warning. I am for the BSLs.
We live in Colorado and we were faced with a dilemma - give up our sweet dog to be euthanized or leave Denver. We chose to move. Our dog has never hurt anyone, would never hurt anyone - she just has unfortunate cheekbones and a boxy head. What if we couldn't leave? How humane is it to ask families to kill their pets when they haven't done anything?
I believe strongly in owner responsibility. People who's dogs attack should not only lose the animal but also be charged with assault or murder - in essence using the dog as a weapon. But we need to differentiate between a dog problem and a thug problem.
Breed bans do nothing but penalize responsible dog owners. People who seek to do awful things with animals - illegal things- don't give a crap about a law. They're not going to stop breaking a law because what they were using to break the law is illegal.
Plus breed bans are a slippery slope - we'll ban pits and pit mixes, say. Who decides what a dog is a mix of if the lineage is unknown? Shall we sacrifice boxer mixes, too, because they can look like a pit mix? What about American Bulldogs and mixes thereof?
Interestingly enough, most serious maulings and fatal attacks have one thing in common: the dog was unfixed male (of varying breeds - not just of pits). If we want to protect people, instead of banning or requiring seperate licensing of certain breeds, perhaps we should instead look at mandating spay/neuter.
as a child i was literally attacted by a cocker spaniel.who would have thought. now i own a pit bull and i couldnt ask for a sweeter, more gentle dog. all i can say is it's all in how you raise em'! if i was told to put her down or move, i'd move too!
Report Abuse
What do yall think about breed specific legislation?There is no vicious breed of dog. And there is no dog breed called a pitbull (it's the American Staffordshire Terrier, or AmStaf).
I do too. I think that instead of prohibiting dogs that can be dangerous in the wrong hands (some breeds are a little more prone to being aggressive, tho I know that any dog can be), that owners should be moderated and possibly even need a liscense to own one of these breeds. It's nothing against the breed, but this would ensure that proper owners are caring for these rather than some idiot who wants their dog to be mean and aggressive. Don't ban the dog, ban the bad owners!What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
in my opinion:
BSL is wrong. They shouldn't be banning specific breeds, they should be banning specific people from having dogs period.
Perhaps people should have to have a license to own breeds that have more of a tendency towards violence. This would ensure only responsible owners would be able to have pitbulls, not idiots that plan on fighting them.
I think that all owners should be heavily penalized for any unwarranted dog bite..I don't believe it should be breed specific, but apply to all..
I mean BIG penalties, such as imposing a $5000 fine, and withholding driver's license until it is paid..that kind of penalty..
I also think there should be large penalties for aggressive dogs attacking other dogs...any breed, any time..
Right now, there are no such penalties, and such cases can only be heard in small claims court.
I believe hitting the wallet is the only way to get owners to be more responsible..
Its ridiculous. Lawmakers are the most misinformed people out there.
m'all thinks that it's people who breed dogs to be vicious. with rare exceptions an animal is not vindictive so figure it out. having a ban on certain types of owners is a better idea.
I like the idea of licenses for certain breeds. I also think that dog owners should be held liable for damages from their pets. If a parent can be held responsible for minors, then they same should occur with pets. And, I think that if you fail to keep your dog properly locked away (like that sad story in the news recently where the family dogs killed their 2-year old), I think that the dog owners should face criminal charges, manslaughter, neglect, something!
I agree with Dolly, good point.
I think we should have legislation about over breeding. I work in an Animal Hospital and we still hear about how someone wants their kids to experience the birth of puppies or kittens.
Then we look at the number of animals in shelters, being euthanized to make room for more strays, animals that are abused, abandoned etc.
I think we should make legislation that insists that pets be spayed or neutered. If we decrease population, we also decrease the agreesive characteristics which have been overbred.
I dont think that they should ban pit bulls. Its the people that make them mean. If they go and kill all the pit bulls those same people will fight other breeds. Its not the breed its how they are raised. We cant go killing all the breeds they decide to fight. If we do that then preaty soon they will be fighting labs, or goldens, or poms. We need to enforce the law about not fighting dogs.
a good video about the topic... http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/ it is graphic so yah..
BLS (breed specific legislation) is BS! Ban the foolish owners, the bad breeders, and have the media show the positive as well as the negative. (the media is so one sided, and some people believe everything they hear!)
I wish there was a way to ban certain people from owning them. That will not happen, so the breeds will get banned. There are too many idiots that own these type dogs and they will ruin it for everyone else.
In my opinion, I think the BSL's are a good idea. I mean, with Pits, Presa Canarios, and such, they don't have the tolerance that most breeds to. It has been proven that these dog's tempers will flare without warning. I am for the BSLs.
What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
States will be mandated to provide health care services to a certain percentage of the population as gay. In other words if Wyoming is short on gays then some people in the state will have to sign in as gay.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
That is not true.
I do not understand why so many Americans have fallen for lies about healthcare in the USA, abroad and also the planned reforms [1]. I mean, if the healthcare system in the USA is so good, why have no other nations taken it up? Could it be due to the following facts?
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [2].
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [3].
Or if the US healthcare system is run so well, why not run the fire service like the healthcare system? [4]
Maybe that is because in the USA, insurance companies push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay claims that people pay for [5]. (Look up Wendell Potter on YouTube to hear more if the link below is too long.)
Obama wants to make insurance cheaper, stop insurance companies from refusing health coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and make sure they pay out when they are meant to [6], a system similar to that which works in Taiwan [7]. He debated this before he was elected [8].
Is it right that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, Cuba, Germany and so many other industrialised nations with universal healthcare?
If you think my arguments are wrong, e-mail me with proof. But if you can not, let Obama try to help America. If he fails, vote him out in 2012.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Change! That's what they asked for that's what their gona get!
Yeaaaa, this isn't true, turn off fox.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Are you serious?
I am starting to think the world will really come to an end in 2012!
What are you raving about now you freaks?
Well Sara you need to support your blatant hate claims.
If this is true it is progress and a sign the country are growing up which you seem to need to do too..
Hate is not a christian value!
S
I fail to see why it is the government's business who is gay and who is not. Sounds like another Democrat mandate designed to take away our freedoms.
I am from Wyoming, and we do not hate gays. After Matthew Shepard, everyone thinks we're a gay-bashing state. We're not. We're just very conservative, and for good reasons. Democratic views destroy many of our state's values. We're the WORLD'S 3rd largest producer of coal, and when Obama says that he's looking for alternate resources than coal, there goes 75% of our state's income. We are republican and proud. Out of our 26-some counties, only 2 had a Obama majority. That was Teton county (Jackson Hole) and Albany County (where our University is). Those are the only two liberal parts of the state, and only because of non-local liberal students. The healthcare bill destroys incentives for hard work and independence. Just another Socialist agenda. It's nonsense.
Jackazz troll
You know anybody who can't afford health insurance?? bet you do.
The GOP is biting it big on this one, all they got to do is run Sarah and Huckabee to relegate themselves to the trash bag of history.
Which I think is an awful thing, we need a strong 2 party system, but this gang of old-white-guys have their heads so far up their collective **** they can't see daylight.
I try to be polite most times But there are other times I just shake my head and wonder W T F. This is just such a time. You Tea Baggers or what ever right wing group you identify with need to get a grasp of reality and stop getting your information from people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news in general. There is nothing in this Watered down bill that is even close to what you claim. Before you type something and make a complete fool of your self in the future you should try doing some actual research.
That is not true.
I do not understand why so many Americans have fallen for lies about healthcare in the USA, abroad and also the planned reforms [1]. I mean, if the healthcare system in the USA is so good, why have no other nations taken it up? Could it be due to the following facts?
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [2].
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [3].
Or if the US healthcare system is run so well, why not run the fire service like the healthcare system? [4]
Maybe that is because in the USA, insurance companies push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay claims that people pay for [5]. (Look up Wendell Potter on YouTube to hear more if the link below is too long.)
Obama wants to make insurance cheaper, stop insurance companies from refusing health coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and make sure they pay out when they are meant to [6], a system similar to that which works in Taiwan [7]. He debated this before he was elected [8].
Is it right that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, Cuba, Germany and so many other industrialised nations with universal healthcare?
If you think my arguments are wrong, e-mail me with proof. But if you can not, let Obama try to help America. If he fails, vote him out in 2012.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Change! That's what they asked for that's what their gona get!
Yeaaaa, this isn't true, turn off fox.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Are you serious?
I am starting to think the world will really come to an end in 2012!
What are you raving about now you freaks?
Well Sara you need to support your blatant hate claims.
If this is true it is progress and a sign the country are growing up which you seem to need to do too..
Hate is not a christian value!
S
I fail to see why it is the government's business who is gay and who is not. Sounds like another Democrat mandate designed to take away our freedoms.
I am from Wyoming, and we do not hate gays. After Matthew Shepard, everyone thinks we're a gay-bashing state. We're not. We're just very conservative, and for good reasons. Democratic views destroy many of our state's values. We're the WORLD'S 3rd largest producer of coal, and when Obama says that he's looking for alternate resources than coal, there goes 75% of our state's income. We are republican and proud. Out of our 26-some counties, only 2 had a Obama majority. That was Teton county (Jackson Hole) and Albany County (where our University is). Those are the only two liberal parts of the state, and only because of non-local liberal students. The healthcare bill destroys incentives for hard work and independence. Just another Socialist agenda. It's nonsense.
Jackazz troll
You know anybody who can't afford health insurance?? bet you do.
The GOP is biting it big on this one, all they got to do is run Sarah and Huckabee to relegate themselves to the trash bag of history.
Which I think is an awful thing, we need a strong 2 party system, but this gang of old-white-guys have their heads so far up their collective **** they can't see daylight.
I try to be polite most times But there are other times I just shake my head and wonder W T F. This is just such a time. You Tea Baggers or what ever right wing group you identify with need to get a grasp of reality and stop getting your information from people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news in general. There is nothing in this Watered down bill that is even close to what you claim. Before you type something and make a complete fool of your self in the future you should try doing some actual research.
Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
This is a statement and it then says to write a few paragraphs explaining it and whether or not I agree with it. However, I have no clue what it means and I have tried looking up what it means but I have had no luck what so ever! I am against smoking and any help to this statement would be helpful! Just more of an explanation would be awesome.
Thanks in advance! :)Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
Paternalism refers to an attitude or a policy reminiscent of the hierarchic pattern. Positive law is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.
The people who are the upper society or Govt are making the laws/anti-smoking legislation with out being of the proper branch of Govt. I think it means that lawyers and not medical professionals are creating the anti-smoking legislation based on them simply being of a law status to decide the issues. It's like sentencing a drug addict to prison instead of drug treatmentAnti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
A whole class of legislation is paternalistic in this sense -- seat belt laws, motorcycle helmets, etc. But, it turns out there are societal consequences beyond the harm to the individual.Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
The USA used to be a free country.
Thanks in advance! :)Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
Paternalism refers to an attitude or a policy reminiscent of the hierarchic pattern. Positive law is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.
The people who are the upper society or Govt are making the laws/anti-smoking legislation with out being of the proper branch of Govt. I think it means that lawyers and not medical professionals are creating the anti-smoking legislation based on them simply being of a law status to decide the issues. It's like sentencing a drug addict to prison instead of drug treatmentAnti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
A whole class of legislation is paternalistic in this sense -- seat belt laws, motorcycle helmets, etc. But, it turns out there are societal consequences beyond the harm to the individual.Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
The USA used to be a free country.
Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
Bush did it as fast as he could with Iraq. All Presidents do it. It is how you get things done.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
Well, the UNEMPLOYED ones do.... but the rest of them.,...especially the ones who contribute here don't understand that the legislation had to go through fast.....because we were on the brink of tent cities in every area of the country....filled with hungry, unemployed.....just like after the last Depression.
The ONLY reason we don't look more like 1930 USA is that Obama DID pass big legislation fast, and started getting money out there in a hurry to stop the free fall.
Heck, he was probably the first President ever to go to the White House after his election and start working on this stuff BEFORE he was ever inaugurated....AND the Bush administration was GLAD for him to do it......
It SAVED them from looking even worse than they already looked....and from total economic freefall in the last months of the Bush administration.
That is simply not true. Bush did not rush through any legislation regarding Iraq or anything else. Let me walk you through the reality of what happened back after the 9/11 attack.
We were already in a state of war against Iraq. Dessert Storm was only in a state of cease fire (that was constantly violated by Iraq). The Commander-in-Chief could have restarted it at any time without any further Congressional approval. But Bush chose to first notify the UN and then the Democrats in Congress begged him to present them with a resolution simply so Congress could go on record as approving of the war. You see, at the time a lot of people were assuming it would be as quick and decisive as Dessert Storm had been. The Democrats wanted in on the glory.
It was only after things began to bog down that the revisionists began the false story that Bush somehow lied to get them to support the war. He clearly did not need their support and that is why your premise is flawed. Bush did not push thorough any legislation without due deliberation, debate and compromise.
What has been going on in Washington since this regime has taken control is unprecedented. Don't let anybody fool you about that. Never before has Congress voted for legislation without first reading it, arguing it point by point and compromising on it to achieve bipartisan support. NEVER!
Never has the will of the people been so dismissed and ignored before. NEVER! It is not supposed to happen this way.
*Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
first off it was almost a year after 9-11 before Bush was able to go to war in Iraq. Second, it took a vote from congress to declare war against Iraq. Third even the democrats voted to declare war on Iraq. This was is by no means getting things done fast. The last point I would like to make is that over 60% of the people were against the spending bills that Obama has passed so far. The president of the United States is supposed to represent the people, not tell the people to shut up and get out of the way. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least Bush wound up backing the legislation with fast action. A year after Obama needed that huge amount "fast", he still had not spent half of it. Keynesian economics theory requires a "sudden" jolt to the economy-much like a doctor jolts the heart with electricity to get it beating again. Obama just stuck a few nine volters on the patient's tongue and let them slowly trickle away.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
There's a difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. Bush thought there was a serious national security concern that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible. There wasn't, but he thought there was. Obama realized that support for his policies was waning and passed legislation meant to deceive the American people.
You are right.
Obama admires Reagan (for some reason) and is using the same strategy... Aggression first, stability as follow-up.
His approval rating are almost a mirror copy of Reagan's...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d鈥?/a>
... with Obama only slightly higher.
And as we all know... Reagan had a very successful two terms.
of course dofus needed to ram his failed legislation through fast. he knows after novemeber he'll get nothing from congress.
Not to mention that he had to get it done before the voters had a chance to put a stop to his destruction of America...
I understand that. Who said republicans don't understand that?
Thanks for pointing out another reason why there is no difference in the two parties. Congrats! You are doing your country a great service.
There is a sense of urgency with war. Big government is only urgent for liberals.
Calling out the idiocy of our system.
Thank you.
can someone get me Steele's cell number? I want to go out and spend 7 millions on strippers with him.
Bush didnt rush into Iraq. it took years.
Yes.
0baama's Marxist agenda is DESTROYING this country... simple, huh?
Well, the UNEMPLOYED ones do.... but the rest of them.,...especially the ones who contribute here don't understand that the legislation had to go through fast.....because we were on the brink of tent cities in every area of the country....filled with hungry, unemployed.....just like after the last Depression.
The ONLY reason we don't look more like 1930 USA is that Obama DID pass big legislation fast, and started getting money out there in a hurry to stop the free fall.
Heck, he was probably the first President ever to go to the White House after his election and start working on this stuff BEFORE he was ever inaugurated....AND the Bush administration was GLAD for him to do it......
It SAVED them from looking even worse than they already looked....and from total economic freefall in the last months of the Bush administration.
That is simply not true. Bush did not rush through any legislation regarding Iraq or anything else. Let me walk you through the reality of what happened back after the 9/11 attack.
We were already in a state of war against Iraq. Dessert Storm was only in a state of cease fire (that was constantly violated by Iraq). The Commander-in-Chief could have restarted it at any time without any further Congressional approval. But Bush chose to first notify the UN and then the Democrats in Congress begged him to present them with a resolution simply so Congress could go on record as approving of the war. You see, at the time a lot of people were assuming it would be as quick and decisive as Dessert Storm had been. The Democrats wanted in on the glory.
It was only after things began to bog down that the revisionists began the false story that Bush somehow lied to get them to support the war. He clearly did not need their support and that is why your premise is flawed. Bush did not push thorough any legislation without due deliberation, debate and compromise.
What has been going on in Washington since this regime has taken control is unprecedented. Don't let anybody fool you about that. Never before has Congress voted for legislation without first reading it, arguing it point by point and compromising on it to achieve bipartisan support. NEVER!
Never has the will of the people been so dismissed and ignored before. NEVER! It is not supposed to happen this way.
*Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
first off it was almost a year after 9-11 before Bush was able to go to war in Iraq. Second, it took a vote from congress to declare war against Iraq. Third even the democrats voted to declare war on Iraq. This was is by no means getting things done fast. The last point I would like to make is that over 60% of the people were against the spending bills that Obama has passed so far. The president of the United States is supposed to represent the people, not tell the people to shut up and get out of the way. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least Bush wound up backing the legislation with fast action. A year after Obama needed that huge amount "fast", he still had not spent half of it. Keynesian economics theory requires a "sudden" jolt to the economy-much like a doctor jolts the heart with electricity to get it beating again. Obama just stuck a few nine volters on the patient's tongue and let them slowly trickle away.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
There's a difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. Bush thought there was a serious national security concern that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible. There wasn't, but he thought there was. Obama realized that support for his policies was waning and passed legislation meant to deceive the American people.
You are right.
Obama admires Reagan (for some reason) and is using the same strategy... Aggression first, stability as follow-up.
His approval rating are almost a mirror copy of Reagan's...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d鈥?/a>
... with Obama only slightly higher.
And as we all know... Reagan had a very successful two terms.
of course dofus needed to ram his failed legislation through fast. he knows after novemeber he'll get nothing from congress.
Not to mention that he had to get it done before the voters had a chance to put a stop to his destruction of America...
I understand that. Who said republicans don't understand that?
Thanks for pointing out another reason why there is no difference in the two parties. Congrats! You are doing your country a great service.
There is a sense of urgency with war. Big government is only urgent for liberals.
Calling out the idiocy of our system.
Thank you.
can someone get me Steele's cell number? I want to go out and spend 7 millions on strippers with him.
Bush didnt rush into Iraq. it took years.
Yes.
0baama's Marxist agenda is DESTROYING this country... simple, huh?
What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
I am a new student on Prophecy. I grew up as an Adventist but feel I need to study and learn more on this issue on my own. So if anyone can help me with this question I would be really glad. I have been through prophecy serminars and have heard the theory of it all so you can go as deep as you need to.
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's therexenon
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's there
What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
I don't want to hear about the recent healthcare bill.
To support your opinion, just name things the government did and how they worked out.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation is proposed by the high minded; written and enacted by the feeble minded (Congress); and then gamed and milked by the corrupt and cynical. The taxpayers pay for it and the career politicians use it to buy votes. The poor people and minorities still end up screwed.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
That the republicans always claimed it would be the end of mankind on earth and they are always wrong.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation has helped America achieve a high overall standard of living for most of its citizens.
for one the FDA - regulating drugs (no more snake oil), Military
The rest is up to your own research but this is a start
To support your opinion, just name things the government did and how they worked out.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation is proposed by the high minded; written and enacted by the feeble minded (Congress); and then gamed and milked by the corrupt and cynical. The taxpayers pay for it and the career politicians use it to buy votes. The poor people and minorities still end up screwed.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
That the republicans always claimed it would be the end of mankind on earth and they are always wrong.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation has helped America achieve a high overall standard of living for most of its citizens.
for one the FDA - regulating drugs (no more snake oil), Military
The rest is up to your own research but this is a start
Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
Yes, it deters busy fingers.
No, it is a feel good law.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
The problem I have is once you allow them to start making small elements of life illegal, this invites them to find more.
What next I can't eat while I'm driving? I agree it's dangerous but I'm also worried once we allow these tiny elements to become criminal, it just opens the door for more. We should be working on removing laws, not creating more as time progresses.
Also texting is done on the down low, it's not like you're texting by your ear where it's visible. It also concerns me when laws are made to be broken, I think we have enough of those. There's no way for a cop to see if you're texting in your car, it would be baseless and yet another way to be pulled over for no reason.
Officer: Oh I thought you were texting, sorry about that but what's that on your backseat, step out of the car.
You can't create a law when there's no way to enforce the law. Unless cops have x-ray glasses now and can see you texting through your car.
Passing this law basically would give the police the right to pull you over for simply holding a cell phone, checking the time, it all could be interpreted as "texting".
When driving, you're supposed to pay attention, not yapping on the phone or texting nonsense to your friends.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
no dumb butt dont be silly
What's really bad is that laws like these are needed. People are just too damn stupid to know that you should not be texting while driving.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
I agree with Joe B. There's nothing I have against the law itself right now (except it's really not stopping anyone), but give them an inch and they'll take your freedom. (I know it's not the saying, but it's what they'll do)
As you say.... nothing fails like prayer. It's better to have a law that prevents potential accidents than prayer for those who were killed.
Freedom is an illusion, anyway.
The penalties should be the same as for drunk driving. Totally justified.
If you are driving - you should be paying attention to the road - not texting.
I think texting and cell phone yapping should be treated like drunk driving.
The last two accidents I was in was caused by cell phone yappers not paying attention.
Yes.
According to the National Safety Council, distracted drivers cause more than a third of all automobile accidents.
I can think of few things that make a driver more distracted than texting. Yes, changing the radio or programming a GPS can also be distracting, but your eyes are more on the road than when texting, where you are looking away for extended periods of time.
Video of accident while driver is texting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_鈥?/a>
It really is redundant.
Texting falls under the category of driving while distracted.
That's already on the books and covers a heck of a lot more.
Since driving is a privilege and not a right, the law is not infringing on anyone's rights.
Yes.
No, it is a feel good law.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
The problem I have is once you allow them to start making small elements of life illegal, this invites them to find more.
What next I can't eat while I'm driving? I agree it's dangerous but I'm also worried once we allow these tiny elements to become criminal, it just opens the door for more. We should be working on removing laws, not creating more as time progresses.
Also texting is done on the down low, it's not like you're texting by your ear where it's visible. It also concerns me when laws are made to be broken, I think we have enough of those. There's no way for a cop to see if you're texting in your car, it would be baseless and yet another way to be pulled over for no reason.
Officer: Oh I thought you were texting, sorry about that but what's that on your backseat, step out of the car.
You can't create a law when there's no way to enforce the law. Unless cops have x-ray glasses now and can see you texting through your car.
Passing this law basically would give the police the right to pull you over for simply holding a cell phone, checking the time, it all could be interpreted as "texting".
When driving, you're supposed to pay attention, not yapping on the phone or texting nonsense to your friends.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
no dumb butt dont be silly
What's really bad is that laws like these are needed. People are just too damn stupid to know that you should not be texting while driving.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
I agree with Joe B. There's nothing I have against the law itself right now (except it's really not stopping anyone), but give them an inch and they'll take your freedom. (I know it's not the saying, but it's what they'll do)
As you say.... nothing fails like prayer. It's better to have a law that prevents potential accidents than prayer for those who were killed.
Freedom is an illusion, anyway.
The penalties should be the same as for drunk driving. Totally justified.
If you are driving - you should be paying attention to the road - not texting.
I think texting and cell phone yapping should be treated like drunk driving.
The last two accidents I was in was caused by cell phone yappers not paying attention.
Yes.
According to the National Safety Council, distracted drivers cause more than a third of all automobile accidents.
I can think of few things that make a driver more distracted than texting. Yes, changing the radio or programming a GPS can also be distracting, but your eyes are more on the road than when texting, where you are looking away for extended periods of time.
Video of accident while driver is texting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_鈥?/a>
It really is redundant.
Texting falls under the category of driving while distracted.
That's already on the books and covers a heck of a lot more.
Since driving is a privilege and not a right, the law is not infringing on anyone's rights.
Yes.
Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
= Abortion
or
do liberal women just need to get an abortion a week?Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Insurance companies are spending $1,000,000 per day only so they can stay on the gravy train. Private health insurance has a 25 to 30% overhead. Medicare only has a 3% overhead.Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Medicare is more like 7-9% administration costs, with private companies averaging from around 20 to 49%. You were on the right track though.
Lot of summing going on if they need one a week.
dont think so , the ads I am seeing from Insurance Corps are anti-health care
or
do liberal women just need to get an abortion a week?Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Insurance companies are spending $1,000,000 per day only so they can stay on the gravy train. Private health insurance has a 25 to 30% overhead. Medicare only has a 3% overhead.Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Medicare is more like 7-9% administration costs, with private companies averaging from around 20 to 49%. You were on the right track though.
Report Abuse
Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?Lot of summing going on if they need one a week.
dont think so , the ads I am seeing from Insurance Corps are anti-health care
Which Legislation do the shops need to be mindful of when using a loyalty card and why?
Need the as soon as possible please.Which Legislation do the shops need to be mindful of when using a loyalty card and why?
Privacy laws about releasing the personal information.
Anti-trust law if the loyalty card restricts trade or forces people to only buy certain products.
Privacy laws about releasing the personal information.
Anti-trust law if the loyalty card restricts trade or forces people to only buy certain products.
What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
between the sexes? Do Gender Issues effect your vote?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
The Equal Rights Amendment as written protects men as well as women from discrimination based on sex. Pass the ERA!
the equal rights amendment.What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
There are more important issues than gender issues to vote on, right now. In America, anyways. If this was Kuwait or Iraq, probably, it would.
doesn't the bill of rights guaranty equal rights for all?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
I didn't know there was inequality between the genders. Hell, I've worked for 6 female bosses.
The ERA, obviously, but I don't expect any of them to bring it up until some commentator does. (Maybe they should.)
I agree the ERA needs to be passed, even if the present laws are enforced, there are quite a few loopholes that depend on the Supreme Court to deal with, and the Supreme Court can change how they interpret the present laws at any time: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Here's what the ERA states:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Why is it still needed?
People think the 1963 Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus Supreme Court decisions
based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, is enough to deal with sex discrimination.
But ERA supporters counter that legal sex discrimination is not yet a thing of the past, and progress of the past 40 years can be changed by court decisions and by congress. Title IX is under constant attack. While some remaining inequities are more the result of individual behavior and social practices than legal discrimination, they can all be
influenced by a strong message that the Constitution has zero tolerance for sex discrimination.
Quite a few important sex discrimination cases have been ignored by the Supreme Court. The ERA would make the need for this constant litigation mute.
Do gender issues affect my vote? Yes. I pay close attention before voting how candidates have voted on the Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Pay Restoration Act, State Children's Health Insurance Program, CEDAW, Access to Birth Control Act, Freedom of Choice Act, Hate Crimes, Marriage, and Family Planning legislation.
nuclear war.traffic school
The Equal Rights Amendment as written protects men as well as women from discrimination based on sex. Pass the ERA!
the equal rights amendment.What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
There are more important issues than gender issues to vote on, right now. In America, anyways. If this was Kuwait or Iraq, probably, it would.
doesn't the bill of rights guaranty equal rights for all?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
I didn't know there was inequality between the genders. Hell, I've worked for 6 female bosses.
The ERA, obviously, but I don't expect any of them to bring it up until some commentator does. (Maybe they should.)
I agree the ERA needs to be passed, even if the present laws are enforced, there are quite a few loopholes that depend on the Supreme Court to deal with, and the Supreme Court can change how they interpret the present laws at any time: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Here's what the ERA states:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Why is it still needed?
People think the 1963 Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus Supreme Court decisions
based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, is enough to deal with sex discrimination.
But ERA supporters counter that legal sex discrimination is not yet a thing of the past, and progress of the past 40 years can be changed by court decisions and by congress. Title IX is under constant attack. While some remaining inequities are more the result of individual behavior and social practices than legal discrimination, they can all be
influenced by a strong message that the Constitution has zero tolerance for sex discrimination.
Quite a few important sex discrimination cases have been ignored by the Supreme Court. The ERA would make the need for this constant litigation mute.
Do gender issues affect my vote? Yes. I pay close attention before voting how candidates have voted on the Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Pay Restoration Act, State Children's Health Insurance Program, CEDAW, Access to Birth Control Act, Freedom of Choice Act, Hate Crimes, Marriage, and Family Planning legislation.
nuclear war.
Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
We have just had a conservatory built, and part of the package was for the builders to install two slim line panel heaters on the walls. While they have had an electrician do the wiring for the lighting and the sockets in the conservatory, and they have fitted the heaters to the wall, they have not either wired the heaters into a fused spur, or even fitted plugs to them. I think there is some sort of legislation that says that panel heaters are classed as fixed electric units, and as such have to be 'spurred' in. If not, they have to at least be fitted with a plug, and are then classed as a portable appliance. Afterall, if you got someone out to fit an electric oven, you wouldn't expect them to leave you with 10mm cable for you to stick a plug on, would you?? lol Can anyone advise please?Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
They are not porable appliances they are fixed to the wall, there is no regulation that they have to be connected to a spur unit, they must have been left for you to plug into one of your new 13amp sockets, these heaters do not come fitted with a 13amp plug top, but out of good p.r. they should have fitted plug tops on them with the correct size of fuse and made sure that they were working properly.Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
Your local county inspector will have to answer that one. he will sign off on the electrical part of your building. Hope you had a permit.Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
Building control should be able to answer this for you.
They do have to be spurred in and the plug that they are wired to has no on of switch, but has a red warning light to let you know when they are on.
They are not porable appliances they are fixed to the wall, there is no regulation that they have to be connected to a spur unit, they must have been left for you to plug into one of your new 13amp sockets, these heaters do not come fitted with a 13amp plug top, but out of good p.r. they should have fitted plug tops on them with the correct size of fuse and made sure that they were working properly.Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
Your local county inspector will have to answer that one. he will sign off on the electrical part of your building. Hope you had a permit.Is there any legislation covering the installation of wall mounted heaters?
Building control should be able to answer this for you.
They do have to be spurred in and the plug that they are wired to has no on of switch, but has a red warning light to let you know when they are on.
What legislation and regulations govern the childcare industry?
Most States do not regulate family child care providers who care for just a few children, typically between ages 2 and 5. Providers who care for more children are required to be licensed and, in a few States, have some minimal training. Once a provider joins the industry, most States require the worker to complete a number of hours of training per year. In nearly all States, licensing regulations require criminal record checks for all child day care staff.
As an example, here's information regarding California day care licensing:
http://www.ccld.ca.gov/PG411.htm
As an example, here's information regarding California day care licensing:
http://www.ccld.ca.gov/PG411.htm
What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
I haven't heard of one thing to increase jobs.
Just some piddly defunding ideas.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
They haven't touch that issues yet even though they promised it would be their first agenda. Boehner where are the jobs
Republicans don't believe its the governments job to create job. They believe its the governments job to make sure jobs can be created easier in the public sector. This is done with cutting regulations and bad laws that make business more costly which means less new hires and private company expanding and even jobs going overseas because of to costly doing business in the US with regulations so strict they tell you how many sheets of toilet paper to use to stay "green".
Republicans do have a numerous bills in the house though that would crack down on some 8 million US jobs being held by illegal aliens 97% of which are NOT in the agriculture industry. Those would open up basically 8 million jobs to US Citizens. Of course none of them will pass Obama and the Senate who are pro illegal aliens and for an open border.
Now look at it like this, really what at this point can republicans really do with the senate and presidency being held by democrats? They can as they are put forth bills to do all sorts of things that would help private sector but every single one the dems shoot down as they have been. The only real viable option at this point is defunding and shutting down some bad legislation and regulations through the budget as that is the only thing that Democrats even have to look at. Reps can't do anything else at this point with their limited power and far left liberals in control who prefer massive government spending and massive government size to basically destroy the private sector and make everything government ran.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
It is not the responsibility of government to create jobs. You are getting sucked in by liberal BS. Republicans in the House want government to get out of the way of private enterprise. The free market will create jobs when taxes and regulations are lowered and when there is some certainty in government.
Substantially defunding the EPA will do wonders to stop their boot on the throat of business level of regulations, which in turn will drive more economic activity and lead to an increased need for hiring.
Also proving to the business community and the world that they are serious about cutting our debt is extremely important for business confidence.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
Big difference in creating jobs as you originally asked and promoting job growth as you asked in your revision.
De-funding the regulations standing in the way of job growth is a very good start. Much more shrinking of the government in necessary to allow the private sector to really start cranking and get us back to those 3-5% unemployment rates we had just a few years ago
As someone that generally votes republican I'm pretty disappointed so far in the lack of ideas that create jobs and the cutting of funds to 2 large science labs in my area that provide a lot of jobs for people in the area and valuable research data.
lol, libbies are so funny, you have spent the past two years defending the Democrats and now can switch gears on a dime.
The Republicans have been in office a little under 2 months not 2 YEARS like BO.
same can be said of democrats and democratic house and senate since 2007
republicans only have the house.democrats are still the majority
They do not care about jobs. They are waging a war on women and working folks...
We are very hard at work Budd.. We will make a symbolic gesture soon bro.
Just some piddly defunding ideas.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
They haven't touch that issues yet even though they promised it would be their first agenda. Boehner where are the jobs
Republicans don't believe its the governments job to create job. They believe its the governments job to make sure jobs can be created easier in the public sector. This is done with cutting regulations and bad laws that make business more costly which means less new hires and private company expanding and even jobs going overseas because of to costly doing business in the US with regulations so strict they tell you how many sheets of toilet paper to use to stay "green".
Republicans do have a numerous bills in the house though that would crack down on some 8 million US jobs being held by illegal aliens 97% of which are NOT in the agriculture industry. Those would open up basically 8 million jobs to US Citizens. Of course none of them will pass Obama and the Senate who are pro illegal aliens and for an open border.
Now look at it like this, really what at this point can republicans really do with the senate and presidency being held by democrats? They can as they are put forth bills to do all sorts of things that would help private sector but every single one the dems shoot down as they have been. The only real viable option at this point is defunding and shutting down some bad legislation and regulations through the budget as that is the only thing that Democrats even have to look at. Reps can't do anything else at this point with their limited power and far left liberals in control who prefer massive government spending and massive government size to basically destroy the private sector and make everything government ran.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
It is not the responsibility of government to create jobs. You are getting sucked in by liberal BS. Republicans in the House want government to get out of the way of private enterprise. The free market will create jobs when taxes and regulations are lowered and when there is some certainty in government.
Substantially defunding the EPA will do wonders to stop their boot on the throat of business level of regulations, which in turn will drive more economic activity and lead to an increased need for hiring.
Also proving to the business community and the world that they are serious about cutting our debt is extremely important for business confidence.What legislation are the new Republicans in Congress proposing to create some new jobs?
Big difference in creating jobs as you originally asked and promoting job growth as you asked in your revision.
De-funding the regulations standing in the way of job growth is a very good start. Much more shrinking of the government in necessary to allow the private sector to really start cranking and get us back to those 3-5% unemployment rates we had just a few years ago
As someone that generally votes republican I'm pretty disappointed so far in the lack of ideas that create jobs and the cutting of funds to 2 large science labs in my area that provide a lot of jobs for people in the area and valuable research data.
lol, libbies are so funny, you have spent the past two years defending the Democrats and now can switch gears on a dime.
The Republicans have been in office a little under 2 months not 2 YEARS like BO.
same can be said of democrats and democratic house and senate since 2007
republicans only have the house.democrats are still the majority
They do not care about jobs. They are waging a war on women and working folks...
We are very hard at work Budd.. We will make a symbolic gesture soon bro.
What legislation exists to recognise and protect your terms and conditions of employment?
There are plenty, have a look on this government web site
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Emplo鈥?/a>
also try this simple test from the page.
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/Employment鈥?/a>What legislation exists to recognise and protect your terms and conditions of employment?
EEO legislation---equal employment opportunities
Employment protection legislation
The department of labor
All of these groups recognize and protect the terms and conditions of employment. I hope i helped!!!!!!!!!!1What legislation exists to recognise and protect your terms and conditions of employment?
Most employees are what is called "at will employee". An at will employee may quit or be fired at any time with or without cause. The only exemption is you cannot be fired because of your race, religion, age or any other protected group.
Also check the links on previous answers some are from the UK not the USA
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Emplo鈥?/a>
also try this simple test from the page.
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/Employment鈥?/a>What legislation exists to recognise and protect your terms and conditions of employment?
EEO legislation---equal employment opportunities
Employment protection legislation
The department of labor
All of these groups recognize and protect the terms and conditions of employment. I hope i helped!!!!!!!!!!1What legislation exists to recognise and protect your terms and conditions of employment?
Most employees are what is called "at will employee". An at will employee may quit or be fired at any time with or without cause. The only exemption is you cannot be fired because of your race, religion, age or any other protected group.
Also check the links on previous answers some are from the UK not the USA
What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
House Bill 45 to declare all magazine weapons illegal and to require strict licensing for gun ownership.What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
Nice try, before you jump to conclusions how about you read more about the bill. It will never pass because there are no sponsors for the bill. It was created by a lone senator and you need sponsors for bills to pass. Which means it is DOA. It will never become law.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45鈥?/a>
Stop letting the NRA delude you and lie to you. Guess what, the Senate which is mainly full of "liberals" recently passed an amendment that allows guns in checked bags on Amtrak. And Amtrak opposed the bill.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589
It is a good article. Guess what. Liberals hunt and own guns too. What a surprise.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status. "
Maybe this is a reason that Obama took control of the Census program right away after being sworn into office?Notice where it says hostile or ECONOMIC.Also notice real or PERCEIVED emergency.
From the Executive Orders webpage:What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
HR 45 has little to no chance of passing. This is not the first time the bill has been introduced by the guy from IL.
To those who think that we are overreacting to NRA propaganda, the NRA has barely mentioned it. To those who think we should just ignore anti-gun pending legislation, do you suggest we just pretend that anti gun legislation doesn't exist?
And if so many liberals are pro gun, why in the world do you insist on voting in anti- gun politicians? It would suggest most liberals are conflicted....
The gun can't be un-invented, and limiting law-abiding citizens to lesser firepower than criminals wield, is , well...moronic. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. Remember the police can't be everywhere at once, and personally I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it. Besides when was the last time you heard of the police stopping a crime, instead of investigating it after the fact?What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Congressional watch groups have also reported that there are no co-sponsors to the bill, and there is very little chance it will be adopted.
This is a proposition from one anti-gun extremist, which in time I think you'll find many liberals are not.
Scares the hell out of me. The government is getting way out of hand and if that bill doesn't convince people what Obama and the government are up to then nothing will and we can kiss our freedom goodbye.
For those of you who don't believe there is such a thing, or that it isn't exactly what he said, please go heree to read the actual bill. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45鈥?/a>
I do believe in gun control its vital to the safety of America as I use both hands when shooting a gun as to have better accuracy
If it passes it will be one of the most ignored pieces of legislation in history.
your asking people to actually read the legislation? HA!
It better not pass
sounds like the Fourth Reich is at our doorstep.
Gun control = not giving guns to idiots...it only takes one to ruin it for the rest of us...magazine weapons?...well tell THAT to our fellow brethren fighting wars that they aren't even meant to fight for those who don't even want anyone else to fight for. As for the second amendment...it only pertains to the TIME that it was drafted for...it needs to be amended because today is TODAY and not THEN...it was more so for people to take up and bear arms/guns together...but not everyone needs to do so...in the end, it is misleading and we all just watch our own country shoot our own people...we are all people...humans...we all have brains...so we should all learn to use them...
Complete total and utter nonsense, lies, propaganda paid for by the NRA---deliberate deception. There is no such plan, no such bill.
More corrupted lies, more red meat thrown to ignorant people who won't can't read a newspaper and learn the facts about what is going on in the world.
I think it's a great first step, and long overdue.
But of course, the gun lobby is going to fight it tooth and nail, so we'll see how far it gets.
A figment of your imagination.sailboats for sale
Nice try, before you jump to conclusions how about you read more about the bill. It will never pass because there are no sponsors for the bill. It was created by a lone senator and you need sponsors for bills to pass. Which means it is DOA. It will never become law.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45鈥?/a>
Stop letting the NRA delude you and lie to you. Guess what, the Senate which is mainly full of "liberals" recently passed an amendment that allows guns in checked bags on Amtrak. And Amtrak opposed the bill.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589
It is a good article. Guess what. Liberals hunt and own guns too. What a surprise.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status. "
Maybe this is a reason that Obama took control of the Census program right away after being sworn into office?Notice where it says hostile or ECONOMIC.Also notice real or PERCEIVED emergency.
From the Executive Orders webpage:What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
HR 45 has little to no chance of passing. This is not the first time the bill has been introduced by the guy from IL.
To those who think that we are overreacting to NRA propaganda, the NRA has barely mentioned it. To those who think we should just ignore anti-gun pending legislation, do you suggest we just pretend that anti gun legislation doesn't exist?
And if so many liberals are pro gun, why in the world do you insist on voting in anti- gun politicians? It would suggest most liberals are conflicted....
The gun can't be un-invented, and limiting law-abiding citizens to lesser firepower than criminals wield, is , well...moronic. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. Remember the police can't be everywhere at once, and personally I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it. Besides when was the last time you heard of the police stopping a crime, instead of investigating it after the fact?What are your views of the pending liberal legislation to drastically diminish American gun ownership rights?
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Congressional watch groups have also reported that there are no co-sponsors to the bill, and there is very little chance it will be adopted.
This is a proposition from one anti-gun extremist, which in time I think you'll find many liberals are not.
Scares the hell out of me. The government is getting way out of hand and if that bill doesn't convince people what Obama and the government are up to then nothing will and we can kiss our freedom goodbye.
For those of you who don't believe there is such a thing, or that it isn't exactly what he said, please go heree to read the actual bill. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45鈥?/a>
I do believe in gun control its vital to the safety of America as I use both hands when shooting a gun as to have better accuracy
If it passes it will be one of the most ignored pieces of legislation in history.
your asking people to actually read the legislation? HA!
It better not pass
sounds like the Fourth Reich is at our doorstep.
Gun control = not giving guns to idiots...it only takes one to ruin it for the rest of us...magazine weapons?...well tell THAT to our fellow brethren fighting wars that they aren't even meant to fight for those who don't even want anyone else to fight for. As for the second amendment...it only pertains to the TIME that it was drafted for...it needs to be amended because today is TODAY and not THEN...it was more so for people to take up and bear arms/guns together...but not everyone needs to do so...in the end, it is misleading and we all just watch our own country shoot our own people...we are all people...humans...we all have brains...so we should all learn to use them...
Complete total and utter nonsense, lies, propaganda paid for by the NRA---deliberate deception. There is no such plan, no such bill.
More corrupted lies, more red meat thrown to ignorant people who won't can't read a newspaper and learn the facts about what is going on in the world.
I think it's a great first step, and long overdue.
But of course, the gun lobby is going to fight it tooth and nail, so we'll see how far it gets.
A figment of your imagination.
What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
Is this what the Teaparty means when it says that they want to "get back to the Constitution".What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
Only the worst group of legislators ever assembled in Congress - your 2010 G0P/Tea Party - throwing the middle class overboard since Grover Norquist was a puppy.
The proposal isn't trying to pass a constitutional amendment in the bill. It's saying that a separate action must be taken to introduce and pass the amendment through regular channels (2/3 vote in each house, then sent to the states for voting) in order for a future increase in the debt ceiling to be approved.What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
So, where's the demonrats plans?
I'm all for criticizing, but I hate morons who just sit and play the blame game. The House has now passed 2 different measures and both times Reid has tabled the bills. No debate, no vote.
Plus, the proposed amendment itself is partisan garbage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52020805/GOP-B鈥?/a>What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
The Tea Party would, by holding the Republican Party hostage... The bill has no chance of passing the Senate, much less being signed by the president, or being voted on by the states...
Imagine that! A Party including a Balanced Budget Amendment on a bill about raising our borrowing limits.
You don't see any link between the two?
a party that believes in fiscal conservatism.
yes.
a dishonest party. they have fallen so far from their core values that reagan would be against them.
Only the worst group of legislators ever assembled in Congress - your 2010 G0P/Tea Party - throwing the middle class overboard since Grover Norquist was a puppy.
The proposal isn't trying to pass a constitutional amendment in the bill. It's saying that a separate action must be taken to introduce and pass the amendment through regular channels (2/3 vote in each house, then sent to the states for voting) in order for a future increase in the debt ceiling to be approved.What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
So, where's the demonrats plans?
I'm all for criticizing, but I hate morons who just sit and play the blame game. The House has now passed 2 different measures and both times Reid has tabled the bills. No debate, no vote.
Plus, the proposed amendment itself is partisan garbage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52020805/GOP-B鈥?/a>What kind of party tries to pass CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as a rider on legislation to avert a crisis?
The Tea Party would, by holding the Republican Party hostage... The bill has no chance of passing the Senate, much less being signed by the president, or being voted on by the states...
Imagine that! A Party including a Balanced Budget Amendment on a bill about raising our borrowing limits.
You don't see any link between the two?
a party that believes in fiscal conservatism.
yes.
a dishonest party. they have fallen so far from their core values that reagan would be against them.
How Legislation moving health insurance from a pretax benefit to taxable income could affect a CO. OPERATIONS?
Specifically how could it affect a company's operations management strategies?How Legislation moving health insurance from a pretax benefit to taxable income could affect a CO. OPERATIONS?
Not much. It will just shift more cost to the employee.
Not much. It will just shift more cost to the employee.
How has legislation from the Department of Homeland Security changed the course of private and public action?
Ari, with all respect, regulation and legislation are different. I believe you mean regulations. Regulations require almost no oversight. Read 1984 to see how the DHS will affect us in the coming years.How has legislation from the Department of Homeland Security changed the course of private and public action?
The Department of Homeland Security doesn't enact legislation.
The Department of Homeland Security doesn't enact legislation.
A piece of legislation that a president was significantly involved?
Im doing a paper on a president of my choosing that is based on one piece of legislation a president has been significantly involved with in our countries history. So which president should i doA piece of legislation that a president was significantly involved?
Nixon abused his legislative powers to get the ball rolling for the "War On Drugs"
Bush abused his to start the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nixon abused his legislative powers to get the ball rolling for the "War On Drugs"
Bush abused his to start the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What is the best source to research information around the Sarbanes Oxley legislation?
I am writing a research paper on the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on publicly traded companies. My research is focusing on investments related to additional controls.What is the best source to research information around the Sarbanes Oxley legislation?
Go to the SEC web site, under the section on internal control reporting provisions (linked below). There, you will see a number of links to studies, testimony, etc. from public companies, accounting firms, investors and so on.
CFO magazine, the FEI, and a publication titled 'Compliance Week' also have information. Another source is the AICPA web site, also linked below.used boats
Go to the SEC web site, under the section on internal control reporting provisions (linked below). There, you will see a number of links to studies, testimony, etc. from public companies, accounting firms, investors and so on.
CFO magazine, the FEI, and a publication titled 'Compliance Week' also have information. Another source is the AICPA web site, also linked below.
How did the Republican government change legislation in southern?
You need to elaborate a little more. This is just too vague to answer.How did the Republican government change legislation in southern?
hot topics such as abortion and gay rightsHow did the Republican government change legislation in southern?
sourthern...................what?
we are waiting!
hot topics such as abortion and gay rightsHow did the Republican government change legislation in southern?
sourthern...................what?
we are waiting!
Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
The Democrats control both houses of congress with large majorities yet Barack can't get any worthwhile legislation passed what's up with that?Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
The dems are afraid of voter backlash and they should be! Obama-care has a 41% approval.
WHEN they can't get something passed, Obama is in trouble. His main plan is hated by most Americans.
Sure we need reform but this ain't it. Tax increases will kill the economy even more.
Obama is more of celebrity than a President. He is busy jetting around the world vacationing or pushing for the Olympics to be in Chicago, on Letterman, on Leno, and on any TV show possible.Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
like we've always said, he's an empty suit.
For one, because he is a moron. Two, there is so much in-fighting among the democrats and the far left kook fringe, because, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the democratic party is imploding.Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
Oh....he is passing something alright...Maybe he should pass the Fart tax....cause he is full of it!
what do you expect from someone who spent their entire political career just disagreeing with the opposition?....now he has to make a decision and he is waiting for the republicans to say something so he can disagree with them and blame them.........that is what democrats in washington do
Obama seems to think he is a professional campaigner!
I notice that you don't have any answers from the Dem's. That's because all they know how to do is blame Bush and the Republicans. They are too dumb to see they could have anything they want if the Dem's did not fear not being able to pass the blame for what they do.
Obama is slowly drowning himself under the weight of his tremendous ego , the stupidity of his arrogance and a ton of lies.
because he has a little problem: The Constitution.
The other problem? Democracy.
The other problem? The internet lets people communicate.
Democrats.
The dems are afraid of voter backlash and they should be! Obama-care has a 41% approval.
WHEN they can't get something passed, Obama is in trouble. His main plan is hated by most Americans.
Sure we need reform but this ain't it. Tax increases will kill the economy even more.
Obama is more of celebrity than a President. He is busy jetting around the world vacationing or pushing for the Olympics to be in Chicago, on Letterman, on Leno, and on any TV show possible.Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
like we've always said, he's an empty suit.
For one, because he is a moron. Two, there is so much in-fighting among the democrats and the far left kook fringe, because, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the democratic party is imploding.Why can't Barack pass any meaningful legislation in the congress?
Oh....he is passing something alright...Maybe he should pass the Fart tax....cause he is full of it!
what do you expect from someone who spent their entire political career just disagreeing with the opposition?....now he has to make a decision and he is waiting for the republicans to say something so he can disagree with them and blame them.........that is what democrats in washington do
Obama seems to think he is a professional campaigner!
I notice that you don't have any answers from the Dem's. That's because all they know how to do is blame Bush and the Republicans. They are too dumb to see they could have anything they want if the Dem's did not fear not being able to pass the blame for what they do.
Obama is slowly drowning himself under the weight of his tremendous ego , the stupidity of his arrogance and a ton of lies.
because he has a little problem: The Constitution.
The other problem? Democracy.
The other problem? The internet lets people communicate.
Democrats.
What is the kickback rate for a $1T piece of health care legislation these days?
If you are the President, how much can you skim from a $1T legislative train wreck?
Also, what is the going rate for Senate Majority Leader? House Majority Leader?What is the kickback rate for a $1T piece of health care legislation these days?
The "payoffs", the "bribes", the "special deals" and ALL the little percs provided in this nightmare, will probably never be fully known.
ONCE Pelosi and Reid make their move from "secrecy" and put it to the WHOLE Congress, I'm sure a number of these will be revealed quickly, but alas, too LATE.What is the kickback rate for a $1T piece of health care legislation these days?
If you add in inflation and color to the mix - it gets kinda of costly.
It was not cheap getting a "Nobody" into office - the skin saved the deal, but was an expensive color.
Also, what is the going rate for Senate Majority Leader? House Majority Leader?What is the kickback rate for a $1T piece of health care legislation these days?
The "payoffs", the "bribes", the "special deals" and ALL the little percs provided in this nightmare, will probably never be fully known.
ONCE Pelosi and Reid make their move from "secrecy" and put it to the WHOLE Congress, I'm sure a number of these will be revealed quickly, but alas, too LATE.What is the kickback rate for a $1T piece of health care legislation these days?
If you add in inflation and color to the mix - it gets kinda of costly.
It was not cheap getting a "Nobody" into office - the skin saved the deal, but was an expensive color.
Is there any current or planned legislation to prioritize financial aid based on major?
Emphasizing mathematics, business/economics, sciences, engineering and other similar programs of study that the government may consider critical?Is there any current or planned legislation to prioritize financial aid based on major?
No, but it sounds like you may be eligible for the SMART grant, which is for science and math programs. That includes engineering. I believe that this FAFSA year, the 2010-2011 FAFSA application, is the last year for the SMART grant. You can find out more info on it at the Dept of Ed student info site:
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/SmartGrants.jsp?tab=funding
No, but it sounds like you may be eligible for the SMART grant, which is for science and math programs. That includes engineering. I believe that this FAFSA year, the 2010-2011 FAFSA application, is the last year for the SMART grant. You can find out more info on it at the Dept of Ed student info site:
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/SmartGrants.jsp?tab=funding
Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
Do most Americans realize that the president doesn't have final say on most issues, that he's basically a figurehead? Do most Americans realize that the senate and the house of representatives control the policies of the united states?
If they do, why do so many people blame the president for policies that he didn't put into place?
Is it just simplistic thinking by simple minds who don't even take the time to learn how ideas are turned into laws?Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
Yes, it is ignorance. It is just like all the people screaming about auditing the fed. If they took 10 minutes to go to federalreserve.gov they would find out that the fed has been audited over 100 times since 1978.
But there is nothing sadder than ruining a perfectly good hate fest with a few facts.
The thing is that its drilled into people's head through the media etc. that the president is all powerful. It keeps their eye off the ball and subtly complacent, especially since most Americans don't know how their government fully functions.
As a result most people don't get involved at any other level of the government. Just voting for the president doesn't cut it, and they wonder why they don't get what they actually wanted.Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
Not so much a figurehead; the President is the head of the Executive branch of government.
You're right, though - he doesn't pass laws although he can and does publish Executive Orders which set guidance on particular topics.
But reading the questions and answers on YA, I have to think that if this is a representative sampling of America, that no - most Americans do not know that!
I have been trying to explain this to people, but it doesn't seem to click with the majority. My husband who immigrated from New Zealand has better grasp of how this government works then people who grew up here! And I think he's more interested!
Congress holds most of the power, because congress is meant to be representatives of the people. A government for the people, by the people.Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
No, not at the moment. But I'll bet the liberals are frantically searching for ways to give Obama whatever power he wants.
.
No but this clown has a posse of idiots doing it for him.
After 8 years of George W, what can you expect ?mr tire
If they do, why do so many people blame the president for policies that he didn't put into place?
Is it just simplistic thinking by simple minds who don't even take the time to learn how ideas are turned into laws?Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
Yes, it is ignorance. It is just like all the people screaming about auditing the fed. If they took 10 minutes to go to federalreserve.gov they would find out that the fed has been audited over 100 times since 1978.
But there is nothing sadder than ruining a perfectly good hate fest with a few facts.
The thing is that its drilled into people's head through the media etc. that the president is all powerful. It keeps their eye off the ball and subtly complacent, especially since most Americans don't know how their government fully functions.
As a result most people don't get involved at any other level of the government. Just voting for the president doesn't cut it, and they wonder why they don't get what they actually wanted.Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
Not so much a figurehead; the President is the head of the Executive branch of government.
You're right, though - he doesn't pass laws although he can and does publish Executive Orders which set guidance on particular topics.
But reading the questions and answers on YA, I have to think that if this is a representative sampling of America, that no - most Americans do not know that!
I have been trying to explain this to people, but it doesn't seem to click with the majority. My husband who immigrated from New Zealand has better grasp of how this government works then people who grew up here! And I think he's more interested!
Congress holds most of the power, because congress is meant to be representatives of the people. A government for the people, by the people.Do most Americans believe the president has full power to enact any legislation?
No, not at the moment. But I'll bet the liberals are frantically searching for ways to give Obama whatever power he wants.
.
No but this clown has a posse of idiots doing it for him.
After 8 years of George W, what can you expect ?
What legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
I'm doing my NVQ3 and have little help, I can't seem to find relevant information. Please, someone, if you can just help me on this I'll be so appreciativeWhat legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
that doesn't sound like the US--what country is it
IDEA/ADA/504 and otehr US laws migth not applyWhat legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
See if any of the following sites will help answer your questions.What legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
The Individuals with DIsabilities Education act (Aka Special Education) requires that American public schools provide an appropriate public education (k-12) for all children with disabilities, including autism. The schools must admit the student and provide them with the appropriate education for their needs.
And in cases where the disability is severe, the school may also have to provide transitional education services until 22.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 covers community supports for programs receiving public funding. They must provide non-discriminatory services to people with disabilities, including those with autism.
And then the Americans with Disabilities Act broadened this accommodation mandate, It required public accommodation of people with disabilities. The ADA differs from the Rehabilitation Act because it did not frame this as a 'treatment' or as a 'privllege' but now as a civil right.
that doesn't sound like the US--what country is it
IDEA/ADA/504 and otehr US laws migth not applyWhat legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
See if any of the following sites will help answer your questions.What legislation, codes of practice and regulations are in place to protect a child with autism?
The Individuals with DIsabilities Education act (Aka Special Education) requires that American public schools provide an appropriate public education (k-12) for all children with disabilities, including autism. The schools must admit the student and provide them with the appropriate education for their needs.
And in cases where the disability is severe, the school may also have to provide transitional education services until 22.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 covers community supports for programs receiving public funding. They must provide non-discriminatory services to people with disabilities, including those with autism.
And then the Americans with Disabilities Act broadened this accommodation mandate, It required public accommodation of people with disabilities. The ADA differs from the Rehabilitation Act because it did not frame this as a 'treatment' or as a 'privllege' but now as a civil right.
What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
concerning the higher tuition rate... Don't we all pay federal taxes?What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
In-state residents may have to pay higher real estate or income taxes to help support their state universities, so they get a break on tuition rates for their state universities. Out-of-state students haven't helped support those universities with their tax dollars, so they have to pay a higher tuition rate. It does mean, though, that some students have access to good state schools like UCLA, UMichigan and UVA, while others end up with U.Rhode Island and Arkansas State.What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
Ah, but it's not your federal taxes that fund public colleges. It's STATE taxes that fund public colleges. The residents of a state have paid taxes to support that state school, and as part of that funding deal, the college grants a lower tuition rate to in-state students.
As an out-of-state student, because you/your parents didn't pay taxes to support this school, you must pay something closer to the full cost of your education there.What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
yes, but the keyword is: State.
State universities give tuition discounts to in state students because they already put money into the schools. They wouldnt like it if they have to put more money on top of what they already contribute through the state taxes. Out of students get charged a bit more because they dont contribute tax dollars, yet they are still using the schools' resources.
I am not aware of any state legislation that doesnt allow this for their state universities.
It's actually a lower rate for in-state students
At least that's what they would argue if anyone actaully took it as far as court system
In-state residents may have to pay higher real estate or income taxes to help support their state universities, so they get a break on tuition rates for their state universities. Out-of-state students haven't helped support those universities with their tax dollars, so they have to pay a higher tuition rate. It does mean, though, that some students have access to good state schools like UCLA, UMichigan and UVA, while others end up with U.Rhode Island and Arkansas State.What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
Ah, but it's not your federal taxes that fund public colleges. It's STATE taxes that fund public colleges. The residents of a state have paid taxes to support that state school, and as part of that funding deal, the college grants a lower tuition rate to in-state students.
As an out-of-state student, because you/your parents didn't pay taxes to support this school, you must pay something closer to the full cost of your education there.What legislation allows state universities to discriminate against out of state students?
yes, but the keyword is: State.
State universities give tuition discounts to in state students because they already put money into the schools. They wouldnt like it if they have to put more money on top of what they already contribute through the state taxes. Out of students get charged a bit more because they dont contribute tax dollars, yet they are still using the schools' resources.
I am not aware of any state legislation that doesnt allow this for their state universities.
It's actually a lower rate for in-state students
At least that's what they would argue if anyone actaully took it as far as court system
What are some common abbreviations for legislation in Congress?
I know that H.R. means house resolution, but there has to be more than just house resolutions flying around in Congress. So what else is there?What are some common abbreviations for legislation in Congress?
H.R. actually just means House of Representatives. A regular bill introduced in the House is prefixed with H.R. In the Senate, they are prefixed with S. There are also joint resolutions (J. Res.), concurrent resolutions (Con. Res.) and simple resolutions (Res.).
H.R. actually just means House of Representatives. A regular bill introduced in the House is prefixed with H.R. In the Senate, they are prefixed with S. There are also joint resolutions (J. Res.), concurrent resolutions (Con. Res.) and simple resolutions (Res.).
Will this legislation help to solve the problem?
Barack Obama is sponsering legislation which would offer a tax credit to those father's who pay child support, and put stiffer penalties on those who don't pay. Being that this is Fathers day I thought how appropriate the question might be. Will it help or hurt laws already on the books?Will this legislation help to solve the problem?
anything would help i dont see how it would hurt in any wayWill this legislation help to solve the problem?
probably not
anything would help i dont see how it would hurt in any wayWill this legislation help to solve the problem?
probably not
When will Obama and his servants start up with the anti gun legislation?
Looks like plenty of folks here are getting ready for it.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/鈥?/a>
I wonder if any criminals plan on obeying any of the gun laws.When will Obama and his servants start up with the anti gun legislation?
As stated, alreayd started.
Read HR 45
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1鈥?/a>
Also read this about proposed assualt weapon ban.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=鈥?/a>
If you want more information on Obama and his anti-gun agenda, check here:
http://www.morebans.org/When will Obama and his servants start up with the anti gun legislation?
its already started--------------miata
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/鈥?/a>
I wonder if any criminals plan on obeying any of the gun laws.When will Obama and his servants start up with the anti gun legislation?
As stated, alreayd started.
Read HR 45
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1鈥?/a>
Also read this about proposed assualt weapon ban.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=鈥?/a>
If you want more information on Obama and his anti-gun agenda, check here:
http://www.morebans.org/When will Obama and his servants start up with the anti gun legislation?
its already started--------------
Who was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Obama must have signed bills raising the individual tax rates several times over the last two years. After all, he is a tax-and-spend commie Democrat.
Before Obama, Clinton must have supported individual income tax rate increases, right? He's just another big spending liberal.
It couldn't have been George HW Bush. That's impossible. After all, he promised he wouldn't, and no Republican President has EVER broken a promise to the American people.
LMAO.Who was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Bill Clinton the highest rate raise since world war 2
hw bushWho was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Ronnie Reagan?
I bet you're sitting there giggling at your screen thinking you're such a funny person who so cleverly used sarcasm over the internet.Who was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Im glad we see eye to eye. we conservatives work everyday to squelch the liberal cancer out of 'merica and give power back to the true 'mericans.
Clinton
Wrong, it was Clinton.
Before Obama, Clinton must have supported individual income tax rate increases, right? He's just another big spending liberal.
It couldn't have been George HW Bush. That's impossible. After all, he promised he wouldn't, and no Republican President has EVER broken a promise to the American people.
LMAO.Who was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Bill Clinton the highest rate raise since world war 2
hw bushWho was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Ronnie Reagan?
I bet you're sitting there giggling at your screen thinking you're such a funny person who so cleverly used sarcasm over the internet.Who was the last President to sign legislation raising individual income tax rates?
Im glad we see eye to eye. we conservatives work everyday to squelch the liberal cancer out of 'merica and give power back to the true 'mericans.
Clinton
Wrong, it was Clinton.
What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
My brother and sister-in-law own two dogs that are in risk of being banned from where they plan to move, and I wondered if anyone out there had any opinion of what they though of BSL. They are working on something to present to the city council to try to stop them from banning the dogs; but the thing is that they are banning just "Pit Bulls" and their dogs are AmStaffs. And the banning is for no reason.
Any Opinion?What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
It has been proven that BSL does not work to eliminate or reduce the amounts of dog bites. I think BSL is just another way AR groups are trying to end all dog ownership. I think the media creates the fear of certain breeds and because of the fear that is created by sensationalizing bites from certain dogs, people believe what they hear and back BSL but what they do not realize is that once one breed has been banned, it will open the door to any and every breed being banned.
Here is an example of what will happen if people do not start paying attention to BSL, and my guess is that list will get bigger.
In Italy they started out with a list of 13 dogs on the dangerous dog list and the list has now climbed to 92 and the dogs on the list are not all large breed dogs there are dogs on the list such as Corgis, Schipperkes and Schnauzers.
This is exactly where we are headed if we allow BSL.
I believe that stiffer penalties (jail time and hefty fines) should be imposed on people who use dogs for illegal purposes or for people who chose to keep dangerous dogs also, for owners that fail to train, socialize and contain their dogs. I bet if you had to go to jail and/or it hurt your pocket, people would be more inclined to research dogs before they got one. People need to be educated about dogs in general, they need to understand pack mentality and behavior. What people need to do is start being responsible when chosing and raising a dog. They need to quit buying dogs based on looks alone and be honest in their ability to handle certain breeds because not all breeds are suited for everyone.
The bottom line is until the law starts making PEOPLE responsible for their actions and the actions of their dog, BSL will change nothing except make certain dogs breeds extinct. I fear that if BSL is not stopped eventually we have have to visit dogs in the zoo with the rest of the wild and dangerous animals.
Punish the deed not the breed.
Well this is very sad in a way, isn't it. It almost seems communistic. However, like guns, there are certain breeds which have come to the forefront in endangerment of others.
So maybe instead of making life miserable, if you own a Pitt Bull, Chow, etc., society could enforce a program of certificate of obedience class passage, which has to be annually updated. Also, animals have to be confined by fence or by leash on walk. Humans come first. However, I have a part Chow, and my homeowners insurance went up.
I think we should approach these issues with more education and in a positive and educated way, rather that just legislating punitive restrictions. It's gotten to the point where these breed are being treated almost as negatively as humans that smoke. I believe in the capabilities and education of the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan,(www.cesarmillan.com) and would like to hear what he has to say about this. http://fightbsl.tripod.com/ gives a list of targeted breeds of BSL, supporting the FightBSL Yahoo group:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightBSL).What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
sign a petition
It is not effective. You have to go after bad owners with strict penalties for knowingly owning vicious dogs. Breed is not the issue, ownership responsibility is.
That said, I am in favor of banning wolf hybrids which are highly unpredictable in behavior and cannot safely be kept like pet dogs. But that is a different issue.What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
BANNING DOGS IS PURE S***!!!! (PARDON MY FRENCH)
I would definately tell them not to move there.
Breed-specific Legislation is complete BS. These laws do NOTHING to protect the public. In England and in Winnipeg, bite numbers went on the rise when BSL was put in place. This is because the real problem is being ignored; irresponsible ownership and crap breeding. Every reputable organization, even non-dog groups, from the Canadian Safety Council to the Centers for Disease Control, are all against BSL. The politicians who make up these laws ignore the real advice, only so that they can make themselves look good (typical).
My opinion is that it's bad! Where I live, the local shelter will adopt out Pit Bulls and Rotties which are the breeds the insurance companies have a fit about. But they destroy all Chow mixes because someone has the dumb idea that they are all bad dogs. It's a shame that any particular breed should be singled out for legislation. The problem is not the dog; it's the ignorant owners who encourage aggression either for dog fighting or because they think it's cool to have a mean dog.
We have 2 Pit Bulls. I'd move before I'd give my babies up. It's ridiculous.
In my opinion, BSL is just racism applied to dogs. What else can you call condemning an idividual based on the minority (breed) it belongs to, rather than assessing the individual.
Competent breeders select away from dangerous temperments, and have done for decades. If felony charges and appropriate penalties were applied to owners and breeders that act irresponsibly, there wouldn't be a problem.
What would I do if BSL was enacted where I live - I'd move! I would also write an open letter to the local paper stating my reason for moving, and how much I used to spend in my local community on an annual basis. (It's not a protest if you don't tell people you're doing it).
tell them not to move there.
breed bans include ANY dog that looks like a pit bull.
look into getting the dogs their canine good citizen, it may help.
AMEN shepherdgirl!! took the words right out of my mouth.
I think it is stupid and straight up racism against dogs. So many Pitbulls have proved to be excellent pets as well as service dogs. Many of the "pit bulls" you hear about in mauling cases aren't even true Pit Bulls. It's ridiculous. They should tell the city these are American Staffordshire Terriers and the dog has no bite history or history of aggression. Banning specific breeds does nothing to stop biting. Some crooked lawyers will claim that pitbulls are responsible for most bitings but that is a misconception. A chihuahua can be listed as a pitbull if it bites. Also, it does not correspond with a study researchers conducted on dog bites. Although a fewof the "banned" breeds were more toward the top of the list many, including Pits were toward the bottom when it comes to most likely to bite humans.
Besides, why should a dog have to suffer for the way a human treated it?
First, I wouldn't move to a place where my dogs were in threat of being banned.
The only other option is to go to the city council and present their case against banning dog by breed and encourage the enforcement of the leash laws and holding dog owners accountable for their behavior. Any dog can be viscious and that includes the little ankle biters and the beautiful cocker spaniels. They may not be able to damage as much as the larger dogs, but they can do enough damage.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous!!! to me its like banning a specific race from living in a community.
I understand why a lot of cities are doing this, but I think its wrong. They need to make stricter rules and punishments for dog fighters and stop banning certain breeds. A lot of towns have been banning pit bulls, but in actuality they can be very sweet dogs and make wonderful pets. They are misunderstood and people use them for wrong and unlawful reasons. I don't believe any city should be able to tell you what breed of dog you can own.
It's Bull $hit Legislation in my book.
Banning a breed of dog is completely wrong... IF the must ban a breed of dog then to make things fair then they must ban all dogs...
I think it's unfortunate that some breeds are singled in BSL, but what's more unfortunate is that there are many owners of such 'dangerous' or potentially dangerous breeds who do not provide their dogs with the appropriate amounts of socialization and behavior training. Disobedient dogs are always potentially dangerous, but some breeds are more inclined to be out of hand.
I think that BSL is unfair, but I don't know what other alternative recommendations that I could make. As I said, there are dangerous dogs of every and any breed. Much of this is a result of pet shops who sell dogs on the spot; you need nothing more than a credit card to own a dog in many situations. It's the sad truth that so many pets (70% of those that are given up) are abandoned because of behavior issues that would not exist if the dog's owner(s) were aware of how to raise the dog correctly.
Perhaps there could be some system which certifies dog owners? This is so hypothetical and near impossible to regulate; I just know that BSL is unfair.
Any Opinion?What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
It has been proven that BSL does not work to eliminate or reduce the amounts of dog bites. I think BSL is just another way AR groups are trying to end all dog ownership. I think the media creates the fear of certain breeds and because of the fear that is created by sensationalizing bites from certain dogs, people believe what they hear and back BSL but what they do not realize is that once one breed has been banned, it will open the door to any and every breed being banned.
Here is an example of what will happen if people do not start paying attention to BSL, and my guess is that list will get bigger.
In Italy they started out with a list of 13 dogs on the dangerous dog list and the list has now climbed to 92 and the dogs on the list are not all large breed dogs there are dogs on the list such as Corgis, Schipperkes and Schnauzers.
This is exactly where we are headed if we allow BSL.
I believe that stiffer penalties (jail time and hefty fines) should be imposed on people who use dogs for illegal purposes or for people who chose to keep dangerous dogs also, for owners that fail to train, socialize and contain their dogs. I bet if you had to go to jail and/or it hurt your pocket, people would be more inclined to research dogs before they got one. People need to be educated about dogs in general, they need to understand pack mentality and behavior. What people need to do is start being responsible when chosing and raising a dog. They need to quit buying dogs based on looks alone and be honest in their ability to handle certain breeds because not all breeds are suited for everyone.
The bottom line is until the law starts making PEOPLE responsible for their actions and the actions of their dog, BSL will change nothing except make certain dogs breeds extinct. I fear that if BSL is not stopped eventually we have have to visit dogs in the zoo with the rest of the wild and dangerous animals.
Punish the deed not the breed.
Well this is very sad in a way, isn't it. It almost seems communistic. However, like guns, there are certain breeds which have come to the forefront in endangerment of others.
So maybe instead of making life miserable, if you own a Pitt Bull, Chow, etc., society could enforce a program of certificate of obedience class passage, which has to be annually updated. Also, animals have to be confined by fence or by leash on walk. Humans come first. However, I have a part Chow, and my homeowners insurance went up.
I think we should approach these issues with more education and in a positive and educated way, rather that just legislating punitive restrictions. It's gotten to the point where these breed are being treated almost as negatively as humans that smoke. I believe in the capabilities and education of the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan,(www.cesarmillan.com) and would like to hear what he has to say about this. http://fightbsl.tripod.com/ gives a list of targeted breeds of BSL, supporting the FightBSL Yahoo group:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightBSL).What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
sign a petition
It is not effective. You have to go after bad owners with strict penalties for knowingly owning vicious dogs. Breed is not the issue, ownership responsibility is.
That said, I am in favor of banning wolf hybrids which are highly unpredictable in behavior and cannot safely be kept like pet dogs. But that is a different issue.What is your opinion of Breed Specific Legislation?
BANNING DOGS IS PURE S***!!!! (PARDON MY FRENCH)
I would definately tell them not to move there.
Breed-specific Legislation is complete BS. These laws do NOTHING to protect the public. In England and in Winnipeg, bite numbers went on the rise when BSL was put in place. This is because the real problem is being ignored; irresponsible ownership and crap breeding. Every reputable organization, even non-dog groups, from the Canadian Safety Council to the Centers for Disease Control, are all against BSL. The politicians who make up these laws ignore the real advice, only so that they can make themselves look good (typical).
My opinion is that it's bad! Where I live, the local shelter will adopt out Pit Bulls and Rotties which are the breeds the insurance companies have a fit about. But they destroy all Chow mixes because someone has the dumb idea that they are all bad dogs. It's a shame that any particular breed should be singled out for legislation. The problem is not the dog; it's the ignorant owners who encourage aggression either for dog fighting or because they think it's cool to have a mean dog.
We have 2 Pit Bulls. I'd move before I'd give my babies up. It's ridiculous.
In my opinion, BSL is just racism applied to dogs. What else can you call condemning an idividual based on the minority (breed) it belongs to, rather than assessing the individual.
Competent breeders select away from dangerous temperments, and have done for decades. If felony charges and appropriate penalties were applied to owners and breeders that act irresponsibly, there wouldn't be a problem.
What would I do if BSL was enacted where I live - I'd move! I would also write an open letter to the local paper stating my reason for moving, and how much I used to spend in my local community on an annual basis. (It's not a protest if you don't tell people you're doing it).
tell them not to move there.
breed bans include ANY dog that looks like a pit bull.
look into getting the dogs their canine good citizen, it may help.
AMEN shepherdgirl!! took the words right out of my mouth.
I think it is stupid and straight up racism against dogs. So many Pitbulls have proved to be excellent pets as well as service dogs. Many of the "pit bulls" you hear about in mauling cases aren't even true Pit Bulls. It's ridiculous. They should tell the city these are American Staffordshire Terriers and the dog has no bite history or history of aggression. Banning specific breeds does nothing to stop biting. Some crooked lawyers will claim that pitbulls are responsible for most bitings but that is a misconception. A chihuahua can be listed as a pitbull if it bites. Also, it does not correspond with a study researchers conducted on dog bites. Although a fewof the "banned" breeds were more toward the top of the list many, including Pits were toward the bottom when it comes to most likely to bite humans.
Besides, why should a dog have to suffer for the way a human treated it?
First, I wouldn't move to a place where my dogs were in threat of being banned.
The only other option is to go to the city council and present their case against banning dog by breed and encourage the enforcement of the leash laws and holding dog owners accountable for their behavior. Any dog can be viscious and that includes the little ankle biters and the beautiful cocker spaniels. They may not be able to damage as much as the larger dogs, but they can do enough damage.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous!!! to me its like banning a specific race from living in a community.
I understand why a lot of cities are doing this, but I think its wrong. They need to make stricter rules and punishments for dog fighters and stop banning certain breeds. A lot of towns have been banning pit bulls, but in actuality they can be very sweet dogs and make wonderful pets. They are misunderstood and people use them for wrong and unlawful reasons. I don't believe any city should be able to tell you what breed of dog you can own.
It's Bull $hit Legislation in my book.
Banning a breed of dog is completely wrong... IF the must ban a breed of dog then to make things fair then they must ban all dogs...
I think it's unfortunate that some breeds are singled in BSL, but what's more unfortunate is that there are many owners of such 'dangerous' or potentially dangerous breeds who do not provide their dogs with the appropriate amounts of socialization and behavior training. Disobedient dogs are always potentially dangerous, but some breeds are more inclined to be out of hand.
I think that BSL is unfair, but I don't know what other alternative recommendations that I could make. As I said, there are dangerous dogs of every and any breed. Much of this is a result of pet shops who sell dogs on the spot; you need nothing more than a credit card to own a dog in many situations. It's the sad truth that so many pets (70% of those that are given up) are abandoned because of behavior issues that would not exist if the dog's owner(s) were aware of how to raise the dog correctly.
Perhaps there could be some system which certifies dog owners? This is so hypothetical and near impossible to regulate; I just know that BSL is unfair.
How Legislation moving health insurance from a pretax benefit to taxable income could affect a CO. COPERATIONS?
Specifically how could it affect a company's operations management strategies?How Legislation moving health insurance from a pretax benefit to taxable income could affect a CO. COPERATIONS?
Yeah, you asked this already.
It changes the cash flow.
Yeah, you asked this already.
It changes the cash flow.
Is the pending economic stimulus legislation an attempt to nationalize the home mortgage industry?
Seem like raising the caps on federally insurable mortgages and having the various gov't underwriting agencies purchase unvetted portfolios of mortgages effectively nationalizes the home mortage industry. SInce I am reading that there may be $2 trillion of bad loans out there, I suspect that means we as taxpayers will then be on the hook for that much in bad loans. Why do I think we are seeing another Savings and Loan Scandal? I sure hope I am wrong.Is the pending economic stimulus legislation an attempt to nationalize the home mortgage industry?
We bail out the banks, because bank failures have serious repercussions for the real economy. Banks play heads I win tails you lose with the public and always have. They use to just fail and stick their depositors with their loses but with the introduction of deposit insurance , the tax payers get stuck. Ordinary banks are now regulated so they rarely fail but a unregulated home mortgage industry was developed to allow the game to continue. The loses are larger than just those due to home loan defaults because the securities created were subjects of speculation so some people made a lot of money on the mess. At least one hedge fund manager made 3 billion dollars in commissions which is 20% of what he made for his investors, so that added another 15 billion to the bill the taxpayers.will end up with. The real icing on the cake is that the 3 billion counts as GDP growth and was taxed at the capital gains rate because people need a tax break to provided them with an incentive to grow the economy.Is the pending economic stimulus legislation an attempt to nationalize the home mortgage industry?
This is much worse than the Savings and Loan scandal. There are more homes being foreclosed on now than during the Great Depression. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, where most of these loans originated, are backed by tax payer money. The best thing to do is to help people to keep their homes by making their loans affordable, but still making them pay for their homes.
We bail out the banks, because bank failures have serious repercussions for the real economy. Banks play heads I win tails you lose with the public and always have. They use to just fail and stick their depositors with their loses but with the introduction of deposit insurance , the tax payers get stuck. Ordinary banks are now regulated so they rarely fail but a unregulated home mortgage industry was developed to allow the game to continue. The loses are larger than just those due to home loan defaults because the securities created were subjects of speculation so some people made a lot of money on the mess. At least one hedge fund manager made 3 billion dollars in commissions which is 20% of what he made for his investors, so that added another 15 billion to the bill the taxpayers.will end up with. The real icing on the cake is that the 3 billion counts as GDP growth and was taxed at the capital gains rate because people need a tax break to provided them with an incentive to grow the economy.Is the pending economic stimulus legislation an attempt to nationalize the home mortgage industry?
This is much worse than the Savings and Loan scandal. There are more homes being foreclosed on now than during the Great Depression. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, where most of these loans originated, are backed by tax payer money. The best thing to do is to help people to keep their homes by making their loans affordable, but still making them pay for their homes.
What is a piece of legislation that is currently being debated?
I am supposed to research one and find an article. You don't have to find an article, just mention anything you know of.
Thanks.What is a piece of legislation that is currently being debated?
NY lawmakers are considering a bill to provide automatic voter registration when someone is issued a driver's license. They also want to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.suzuki samurai
Thanks.What is a piece of legislation that is currently being debated?
NY lawmakers are considering a bill to provide automatic voter registration when someone is issued a driver's license. They also want to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Legislation on access and use of database information in different countries?
I have an IT project, any sources I can use? Articles would be very help full too!Legislation on access and use of database information in different countries?
try google
try google
Care in the community legislation? where can i find a list of relevant legislation?
i am doing an assignment and need to find 'care in the community' legislation that could support a family as one of the parents has mental health issues. please help.Care in the community legislation? where can i find a list of relevant legislation?
http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyr鈥?/a>
http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyr鈥?/a>
How did the fourteenth amendment legislation identify diplomats?
It doesn't.
RichardHow did the fourteenth amendment legislation identify diplomats?
i am assuming, anybody in the United States representing foreign nations. For example: The 14th amendment with regards to citizenship are not considered to be natural citizens. So if a Man name Mr. Smithe was in Washington doing business on behalf of England's parliament, and he had a son born in the local D.C. hospital, then that child would nto be considered to be a U.S. Citizen.How did the fourteenth amendment legislation identify diplomats?
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law...(ever heard of "diplomatic immunity"?). Therefore they do not fall under the 14th amendment. Same for an invading army's soldiers, or (until they moved onto the reservation) American Indians.
Illegal Aliens ARE "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law (if they wern't then we couldn't deport them) so their children ARE U.S. citizens.
RichardHow did the fourteenth amendment legislation identify diplomats?
i am assuming, anybody in the United States representing foreign nations. For example: The 14th amendment with regards to citizenship are not considered to be natural citizens. So if a Man name Mr. Smithe was in Washington doing business on behalf of England's parliament, and he had a son born in the local D.C. hospital, then that child would nto be considered to be a U.S. Citizen.How did the fourteenth amendment legislation identify diplomats?
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law...(ever heard of "diplomatic immunity"?). Therefore they do not fall under the 14th amendment. Same for an invading army's soldiers, or (until they moved onto the reservation) American Indians.
Illegal Aliens ARE "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law (if they wern't then we couldn't deport them) so their children ARE U.S. citizens.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Do you support any type of gun legislation?
Do you think there should be any type of gun legislation, and if so, what? This question isn't limited to whether or not you want to ban guns, so to the people that want more lenient laws: should you need a permit? Should automatic weapons be legal? And should there be background checks?Do you support any type of gun legislation?
In a word or two: Hell No!
Personally, I would prefer that most governments be banned from owning guns. They have proven over and over again that they can not be trusted. Banning any form of instrumentality only guarantees it will be more popular. Instead I would love to see crime banned, but then we'd have a lot of unemployed politicians.
"The right to bear arms"
I do support that because it is constitutional. The only problem I have is there are no clear restrictions on "who" should be able to purchase a gun. Yes we all have the right to bear arms, but I do think at some point background checks should be apart of the equation. You have some who buy guns for the wrong reasons. Having a gun isn't a problem but it can be a problem if you are mentally unstable. Bottom line? Have background checks for all who want a license and who want to purchase a firearm and I mean more extensive checks.Do you support any type of gun legislation?
I do not support any form of further gun control whatsoever.
I would support more open carry laws, and concealed weapon handgun laws, permitting both across the nation however.
Automatic weapons are currently legal with special federal license. The nation already has background checks to buy a firearm (most firearms). Permits are required (in most states) to carry a concealed weapon.
I would be for making the legal burden lighter for gun sellers and consumers in all of these regards.
The nation, at various times in our fairly recent history, had none of these restrictions.....and mass murder was not the norm (as some might imagine by lessening these restrictions).
Background checks have never proven to reduce crime. Why bother spending all the time and money for something that doesn't work? In fact according to the Center for Disease Control, after nearly 100 years of gun control they cannot show that any gun control measure reduces crime. On the other hand, some of the most in depth research on guns and violence in the US shows that the more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is. Over the last five year violent crime has come down every year and gun ownership has gone up.
So yes, I'm for legislation that make it easier for the law abiding to own and carry guns. Support S.845 written by Senator John Thune and HR.1620. If passed into law, every state would be forced to recognize any other state's legitimate concealed carry permit.
I don't think I should be forced to abandon the best means I have to defend my family and myself just because I cross some line on a map.Do you support any type of gun legislation?
No, but it doesn't matter.
No matter how many laws are passed, the fact remains:
Sancho "Bloodripper" Martinez on the corner of Crack Street and Vine doesn't do background checks and is more than happy to overlook my felony charge.
Turns out he also sells cocaine.
Funny how those laws didn't work either....
I am pro-gun all the way. I am okay with background checks, because law-abiding citizens can still get firearms even with background checks, and that is my biggest concern. That is about it as far as regulations need to go.
yes, background checks and I also think that if a gun is used in a crime, that person should be locked up for no less then 10 years no matter if the gun was fired or not.
Yes.
When the U.S Constitution was written our founding fathers were not thinking about Joe Schmuckatelli being able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an assault weapon without any regulations.
Maybe nuclear weapons and biological weapons. MAYBE.
I trust total stangers more than the government.
No gun legislation at all. All gun legislation means is someone can have this defense, just not you for whatever reason.
more bacground checks but less restrictions and the return to full auto ownership less restrictive......baron
lets rock and roll!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eee44D_Zk鈥?/a>
I support 2nd Amendment, which IS gun legislation of sorts.
If you want to carry a gun, you should have to pass a fire arms course. That's about it.
Gun control is "shooting straight."
Yes, until we have a ban similar to the Japanese and the British we can expect to continue to have among the highest rate of murder by gun in the world.
I'm a gay man and a democrat. I think guns care scary and should be outlawed
In a word or two: Hell No!
Personally, I would prefer that most governments be banned from owning guns. They have proven over and over again that they can not be trusted. Banning any form of instrumentality only guarantees it will be more popular. Instead I would love to see crime banned, but then we'd have a lot of unemployed politicians.
"The right to bear arms"
I do support that because it is constitutional. The only problem I have is there are no clear restrictions on "who" should be able to purchase a gun. Yes we all have the right to bear arms, but I do think at some point background checks should be apart of the equation. You have some who buy guns for the wrong reasons. Having a gun isn't a problem but it can be a problem if you are mentally unstable. Bottom line? Have background checks for all who want a license and who want to purchase a firearm and I mean more extensive checks.Do you support any type of gun legislation?
I do not support any form of further gun control whatsoever.
I would support more open carry laws, and concealed weapon handgun laws, permitting both across the nation however.
Automatic weapons are currently legal with special federal license. The nation already has background checks to buy a firearm (most firearms). Permits are required (in most states) to carry a concealed weapon.
I would be for making the legal burden lighter for gun sellers and consumers in all of these regards.
The nation, at various times in our fairly recent history, had none of these restrictions.....and mass murder was not the norm (as some might imagine by lessening these restrictions).
Background checks have never proven to reduce crime. Why bother spending all the time and money for something that doesn't work? In fact according to the Center for Disease Control, after nearly 100 years of gun control they cannot show that any gun control measure reduces crime. On the other hand, some of the most in depth research on guns and violence in the US shows that the more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is. Over the last five year violent crime has come down every year and gun ownership has gone up.
So yes, I'm for legislation that make it easier for the law abiding to own and carry guns. Support S.845 written by Senator John Thune and HR.1620. If passed into law, every state would be forced to recognize any other state's legitimate concealed carry permit.
I don't think I should be forced to abandon the best means I have to defend my family and myself just because I cross some line on a map.Do you support any type of gun legislation?
No, but it doesn't matter.
No matter how many laws are passed, the fact remains:
Sancho "Bloodripper" Martinez on the corner of Crack Street and Vine doesn't do background checks and is more than happy to overlook my felony charge.
Turns out he also sells cocaine.
Funny how those laws didn't work either....
I am pro-gun all the way. I am okay with background checks, because law-abiding citizens can still get firearms even with background checks, and that is my biggest concern. That is about it as far as regulations need to go.
yes, background checks and I also think that if a gun is used in a crime, that person should be locked up for no less then 10 years no matter if the gun was fired or not.
Yes.
When the U.S Constitution was written our founding fathers were not thinking about Joe Schmuckatelli being able to walk into a gun store and walk out with an assault weapon without any regulations.
Maybe nuclear weapons and biological weapons. MAYBE.
I trust total stangers more than the government.
No gun legislation at all. All gun legislation means is someone can have this defense, just not you for whatever reason.
more bacground checks but less restrictions and the return to full auto ownership less restrictive......baron
lets rock and roll!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eee44D_Zk鈥?/a>
I support 2nd Amendment, which IS gun legislation of sorts.
If you want to carry a gun, you should have to pass a fire arms course. That's about it.
Gun control is "shooting straight."
Yes, until we have a ban similar to the Japanese and the British we can expect to continue to have among the highest rate of murder by gun in the world.
I'm a gay man and a democrat. I think guns care scary and should be outlawed
What are controversial pieces of legislation in the last decade?
In the United States, what are some of the controversial laws that have been put into place... I can think of the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, but I was wondering if anyone could think of anymoreWhat are controversial pieces of legislation in the last decade?
FISA
Social Security - privatization plan
SCHIP
also DADT was in 1993google crome
FISA
Social Security - privatization plan
SCHIP
also DADT was in 1993
Would both Republicans and Democrats agree to a cease fire on legislation?
More laws means more Lawyers. Can't we go back to where there was freedom to hire and fire someone? Free from excessive fees, year long permitting, and endless fees for inspections? Coul republicans drop abortion and vice laws while the Democrats drop your attack on businessmen and other freedoms?Would both Republicans and Democrats agree to a cease fire on legislation?
seems quite obvious your'e not able to make sense in the politics seciton....
could be, but learnign what oyu're talking aboiut is better than making a fool of yourself on the WORLD WIDE WEB!
we really need a law maximum "the rule of 100"
and you can only pass a new law if it actually imporves over the last law on the books for that subject
and repeal the old law or at lest strip it from the books
I agree, I think we should be focusing on the economy more than anything rather then rambling on about abortion, and corporate profiteeringWould both Republicans and Democrats agree to a cease fire on legislation?
No...each party needs their boogeymen.
seems quite obvious your'e not able to make sense in the politics seciton....
could be, but learnign what oyu're talking aboiut is better than making a fool of yourself on the WORLD WIDE WEB!
Report Abuse
Would both Republicans and Democrats agree to a cease fire on legislation?we really need a law maximum "the rule of 100"
and you can only pass a new law if it actually imporves over the last law on the books for that subject
and repeal the old law or at lest strip it from the books
I agree, I think we should be focusing on the economy more than anything rather then rambling on about abortion, and corporate profiteeringWould both Republicans and Democrats agree to a cease fire on legislation?
No...each party needs their boogeymen.
How have labor unions played a historical role in helping create legislation to protect workers?
Check out this history of the labor movement.How have labor unions played a historical role in helping create legislation to protect workers?
try joining a union, check www.local3.info for links and such
try joining a union, check www.local3.info for links and such
Legislation which is clear about taking photographs in public where children are present?
according to article 8 of the human rights charter it is illegal to take pictures of someone without their permission but it has never been tested in court , anyway I for one would find it difficult to legislate on this , another EU rule that nobody can really make any sense out of itLegislation which is clear about taking photographs in public where children are present?
This is the most stupid answer I have seen.
Nowhere in the HR charter does it mention the taking of photographs.
Article is the right to respect for family and private life but this most
certainly does not a. restrict individuals taking pictures in public.
b. makes no specific mention of photos.
there is no law that prohibits the taking photographs of children in public places or taking photos when children are present .Some organisations or event regulators impose restrictions of camera use when attending events .But if you are in a public space you can take photos of whatever you like.Search the web for photographing children in public and you will get information on local authority and organisations own policies on this subject.If you banned the taking of photos when children are present then you would in effect have to ban cameras from virtually everywhere.Most of the so called policies or rules are no such thing they are broad guidelines that a jumped up bureaucrat has interpreted to the most severe degree and they then ban filming of nativity plays sports days and the like.Legislation which is clear about taking photographs in public where children are present?
There is NO legislation covering taking pictures of anyone who is in a public place.
Therefore it is perfectly legal to take pictures of anyone (adult or child).
If you are on private land then the owners can prohibit the taking of photographs. Breaching their rules would mean that you would be trespassing and could be ejected but it is a civil and not a legal matter.
John3131 - rubbish. If you are in public then sure someone can ask that you delete a picture which includes them. However you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.
Noone, not even the police can force you to delete the pictures and should they do so themselves then they are the ones who would be in trouble - for assault.
Googling "photography in public" or similar will bring up loads of information.
there has been a lot about taking pics in public where children could appear in the pics , but like you i cant find any definite guidelines on this, so to be on the safe side i just don't take any photographs where and when children could be on the said picture, better safe than sorry, and keep yourself in the clear that's my motto regards kids in photographs . only time i take photographs with children in then is when the parents ask me to take the child's photo.
remember any member of the public can ask you to remove any pics with them in the said pic ,and legally you have to oblige if they ask.
hope this helps , but cant get any legislation on the subject myself
This is the most stupid answer I have seen.
Nowhere in the HR charter does it mention the taking of photographs.
Article is the right to respect for family and private life but this most
certainly does not a. restrict individuals taking pictures in public.
b. makes no specific mention of photos.
Report Abuse
Legislation which is clear about taking photographs in public where children are present?there is no law that prohibits the taking photographs of children in public places or taking photos when children are present .Some organisations or event regulators impose restrictions of camera use when attending events .But if you are in a public space you can take photos of whatever you like.Search the web for photographing children in public and you will get information on local authority and organisations own policies on this subject.If you banned the taking of photos when children are present then you would in effect have to ban cameras from virtually everywhere.Most of the so called policies or rules are no such thing they are broad guidelines that a jumped up bureaucrat has interpreted to the most severe degree and they then ban filming of nativity plays sports days and the like.Legislation which is clear about taking photographs in public where children are present?
There is NO legislation covering taking pictures of anyone who is in a public place.
Therefore it is perfectly legal to take pictures of anyone (adult or child).
If you are on private land then the owners can prohibit the taking of photographs. Breaching their rules would mean that you would be trespassing and could be ejected but it is a civil and not a legal matter.
John3131 - rubbish. If you are in public then sure someone can ask that you delete a picture which includes them. However you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.
Noone, not even the police can force you to delete the pictures and should they do so themselves then they are the ones who would be in trouble - for assault.
Googling "photography in public" or similar will bring up loads of information.
there has been a lot about taking pics in public where children could appear in the pics , but like you i cant find any definite guidelines on this, so to be on the safe side i just don't take any photographs where and when children could be on the said picture, better safe than sorry, and keep yourself in the clear that's my motto regards kids in photographs . only time i take photographs with children in then is when the parents ask me to take the child's photo.
remember any member of the public can ask you to remove any pics with them in the said pic ,and legally you have to oblige if they ask.
hope this helps , but cant get any legislation on the subject myself
Is codex alimentarius a NWO eugenics and population control operation or legislation?
I hear that it takes effect or begins next week, December 31 2009.
I hear it is for destroying the health of the common man to widen the gap between us and the elite.Is codex alimentarius a NWO eugenics and population control operation or legislation?
it is meant to remove all vitamins and minerals from our food and make our food even more chemically processed and unfit for a healthy individual... next they'll be giving us vitamins in the form of a poisoned injection ...... the NWO must be destroyed
I hear it is for destroying the health of the common man to widen the gap between us and the elite.Is codex alimentarius a NWO eugenics and population control operation or legislation?
it is meant to remove all vitamins and minerals from our food and make our food even more chemically processed and unfit for a healthy individual... next they'll be giving us vitamins in the form of a poisoned injection ...... the NWO must be destroyed
What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
I need to write a 4-6 page paper, taking an affirmative position for the legalization of marijuana. I need some academic/ scholarly sources. Any advice? I found some charts related to accidents, and some data showing the potential revenue it would bring in, though I need something really concrete, that it hard to refute. I really need some developed articles, written by intellectuals, or respected scholars. Any advice?What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
Here is a list of about 20 all in one place with synopsis:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
Um look at Common Sense written by a pseudonym of a US forefather. In which they state marijuana is a staple to the US, via mass production and medicine. Along with that the natural idea that marijuana is less harm-full to the Human than alcohol. Along with sources of comparison of it to soybean. Other googly terms are that it can actually cause carbon dioxide levels to decrease if we legalize the bi product which is marijuana so hemp becomes a staple again so we substitute trees for hemp bushes that grow faster and at a less environmental cost benefit analysis. Plus, the fact that marijuana is much like mead was in the Netherlands, the American Indian,s used it for medicine for a very long time. I have written many papers. The best research to due is to show we can already test it for legal recreation use by machine. Which is by breath, or blood that shows the amount of THC that would cause a person to not be able to run a machine, safely.What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
I can't really name sources their are some at Cal Tec that have done extensive research.
You might also wish to include the economics of legalizing the plant in your paper.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu0鈥?/a>
You're not going to get any kind of those sources in here.permit practice test
Here is a list of about 20 all in one place with synopsis:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
Um look at Common Sense written by a pseudonym of a US forefather. In which they state marijuana is a staple to the US, via mass production and medicine. Along with that the natural idea that marijuana is less harm-full to the Human than alcohol. Along with sources of comparison of it to soybean. Other googly terms are that it can actually cause carbon dioxide levels to decrease if we legalize the bi product which is marijuana so hemp becomes a staple again so we substitute trees for hemp bushes that grow faster and at a less environmental cost benefit analysis. Plus, the fact that marijuana is much like mead was in the Netherlands, the American Indian,s used it for medicine for a very long time. I have written many papers. The best research to due is to show we can already test it for legal recreation use by machine. Which is by breath, or blood that shows the amount of THC that would cause a person to not be able to run a machine, safely.What are some academic sources that make an argument for passing of legislation that would legalize marijuana?
I can't really name sources their are some at Cal Tec that have done extensive research.
You might also wish to include the economics of legalizing the plant in your paper.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu0鈥?/a>
You're not going to get any kind of those sources in here.
Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
If people are terminally ill, and in excruciating pain, why isn't it Christian to alleviate their pain? We seem to have more sympathy for our dogs, who we will put down if their agony exceeds their quality of life. I'm not a Christian, but watching somebody suffer when you can relieve their pain seems downright evil to me. I also have to say it seems a bit presumptuous for people to try and control the end of another person's life.
Does anyone out there oppose assisted suicide on grounds that aren't religious?Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
this question is so personal for me. my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer 17 years ago. the cancer spread. everywhere. quickly. it was in her bones and brain in its final stages. she lived for 2 years after her initial diagnosis. she was expected to make it only 6 months. those 2 years were filled with pain. but, they were also filled with some wonderful memories, too. my little brother was only 13 when she passed. i think the only reason she hung on for 2 years was in the hopes of seeing him graduate. she didn't. i know i wanted her pain to end. but i was also selfish in that i wanted her there with me. i knew how painful it was going to be for my little brother. i remember when she made her last trip to the hospital. they asked us if we wanted her to be placed on a feeding tube. we said no, knowing the feeding tube would only prolong her suffering by keeping her lingering on. i just didn't want her to suffer any longer. none of us did. as a christian, it is so conflicting to ask one's self if it is in your right to decide when another person's life should end. but, at the same time, your heart breaks seeing a loved one suffer. i know i didn't answer your question, per say. but i do hope i gave some insight as to why it is such a personal decision and why people are so passionate one way or the other. peace and God bless.
It is cruel not to honor the wishes of the dying. Let them go with some dignity and how they want. I don't care if your religion says it's wrong.Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
Most interpretations of the bible say that suicide for any reason condemns a person to hell. It's fairly liberally stated in church doctrine, especially historically. The only reason that is non religious that i can think of is some people who can't communicate or who are depressed may inadvertantly and permanantly end their lives, wishing they hadn't once they are dead.
AS long as Doctors don't perform it, I'm fine with it. We should should have suicide booths like in Futurama, and have high tax rates on them. Then we can at least make money. Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
Same reason they are pro-life yet kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics.
Sometimes they're hypocritical. Don't try to understand it.
They are still of the belief that God makes money and he is against ending your own life. If people would only see the HMO and Health-care people make a living off of the long and tortuous death of our sick and dying. They are taking the money right out of the hands of the future and giving it to doctors that know death in inevitable and prolong death for their own gain. Kill me when you can see I can not live life to the fullest. I do not want to live for even one week terminally ill.
"Why isn't it Christian to alleviate their pain?" If I was going to be snarky, I might say "That's what morphine is for, not death, silly..." followed by something about a false dichotomy.
Seriously, though. Because they're opposed to both murder and suicide. It's pretty consistent with the "culture of life" image that Christians (Pope John Paul II, Dubya) sometimes refer to...usually right before they refer to the "culture of death" on the other side of things. The only socially conservative view that doesn't fall in line with this is the one that supports capital punishment. Evan there, though, Southern Baptists support capital punishment, while Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Evangelical Lutherans, and Mennonites oppose it. With other parts of Protestantism, whether mainline or evangelical, it's too fragmented to say one way or the other, but we know it's mixed. Catholicism traditionally supported it, but Pope John Paul II refined the church's position and it now opposes it in nearly all cases. The ideal would be, and I quote, "very rare, if not practically non-existent." Other than this partial and questionable exception, Christians very consistently hold social views that favor life over the alternative in almost every situation. Exhibit A is abortion, B is euthanasia, C is assisted suicide, and D is stem cells. There are more, of course.
Does anyone out there oppose assisted suicide on grounds that aren't religious? Yes. The general set of positions represented in the "culture of life" idea were primarily articulated by religious leaders, but it is a set of moral values that does not necessarily have to be religious in origin. One does not have to be religious in order to arrive at the conclusion that morality is something of importance with regard to human life.
I believe it is because life is considered a test that god has given to them and its their test to pass or fail not for someone else to decide for them.
Does anyone out there oppose assisted suicide on grounds that aren't religious?Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
this question is so personal for me. my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer 17 years ago. the cancer spread. everywhere. quickly. it was in her bones and brain in its final stages. she lived for 2 years after her initial diagnosis. she was expected to make it only 6 months. those 2 years were filled with pain. but, they were also filled with some wonderful memories, too. my little brother was only 13 when she passed. i think the only reason she hung on for 2 years was in the hopes of seeing him graduate. she didn't. i know i wanted her pain to end. but i was also selfish in that i wanted her there with me. i knew how painful it was going to be for my little brother. i remember when she made her last trip to the hospital. they asked us if we wanted her to be placed on a feeding tube. we said no, knowing the feeding tube would only prolong her suffering by keeping her lingering on. i just didn't want her to suffer any longer. none of us did. as a christian, it is so conflicting to ask one's self if it is in your right to decide when another person's life should end. but, at the same time, your heart breaks seeing a loved one suffer. i know i didn't answer your question, per say. but i do hope i gave some insight as to why it is such a personal decision and why people are so passionate one way or the other. peace and God bless.
It is cruel not to honor the wishes of the dying. Let them go with some dignity and how they want. I don't care if your religion says it's wrong.Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
Most interpretations of the bible say that suicide for any reason condemns a person to hell. It's fairly liberally stated in church doctrine, especially historically. The only reason that is non religious that i can think of is some people who can't communicate or who are depressed may inadvertantly and permanantly end their lives, wishing they hadn't once they are dead.
AS long as Doctors don't perform it, I'm fine with it. We should should have suicide booths like in Futurama, and have high tax rates on them. Then we can at least make money. Why don't most Christians support legislation that would allow assisted suicide?
Same reason they are pro-life yet kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics.
Sometimes they're hypocritical. Don't try to understand it.
They are still of the belief that God makes money and he is against ending your own life. If people would only see the HMO and Health-care people make a living off of the long and tortuous death of our sick and dying. They are taking the money right out of the hands of the future and giving it to doctors that know death in inevitable and prolong death for their own gain. Kill me when you can see I can not live life to the fullest. I do not want to live for even one week terminally ill.
"Why isn't it Christian to alleviate their pain?" If I was going to be snarky, I might say "That's what morphine is for, not death, silly..." followed by something about a false dichotomy.
Seriously, though. Because they're opposed to both murder and suicide. It's pretty consistent with the "culture of life" image that Christians (Pope John Paul II, Dubya) sometimes refer to...usually right before they refer to the "culture of death" on the other side of things. The only socially conservative view that doesn't fall in line with this is the one that supports capital punishment. Evan there, though, Southern Baptists support capital punishment, while Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Evangelical Lutherans, and Mennonites oppose it. With other parts of Protestantism, whether mainline or evangelical, it's too fragmented to say one way or the other, but we know it's mixed. Catholicism traditionally supported it, but Pope John Paul II refined the church's position and it now opposes it in nearly all cases. The ideal would be, and I quote, "very rare, if not practically non-existent." Other than this partial and questionable exception, Christians very consistently hold social views that favor life over the alternative in almost every situation. Exhibit A is abortion, B is euthanasia, C is assisted suicide, and D is stem cells. There are more, of course.
Does anyone out there oppose assisted suicide on grounds that aren't religious? Yes. The general set of positions represented in the "culture of life" idea were primarily articulated by religious leaders, but it is a set of moral values that does not necessarily have to be religious in origin. One does not have to be religious in order to arrive at the conclusion that morality is something of importance with regard to human life.
I believe it is because life is considered a test that god has given to them and its their test to pass or fail not for someone else to decide for them.
Is there any current federal legislation regarding anything automotive?
I need an issue that is currently on-going and came about no earlier than January 15th of this year. If you don't know of any automotive ones, just throw out any that are interesting and researchable.
Thanks to anyone who can helpIs there any current federal legislation regarding anything automotive?
Toyota recalls.^
Thanks to anyone who can helpIs there any current federal legislation regarding anything automotive?
Toyota recalls.^
How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
Only a few are required to reach the Magic Sixty.How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
This will be the second major legislation for the Obama administration. It will pass in the Senate with the help of a small handful of Republican Senators, among them Olympia Snowe.How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
It depends on how far Israel would be benefitted from it! You must agree to that. After all, itsn't that the criteria??How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vie鈥?/a>
Here you go Flipper:
In an appearance on Good Morning America today, Sen. Bob Corker (R - Tenn.) said that the current financial reform bill that the GOP has issued strong objections to can be fixed "in a week's time" and that both parties should "tone down the rhetoric a little bit."
Last month, Corker was displeased with his fellow GOP members, whom, he said, missed a big opportunity to introduce amendments to the Democrat's financial reform bill before it was sent to the Senate floor.
Still, Corker was optimistic that a bipartisan agreement on financial reform can be reached quickly. Here's the AP on Corker's appearance:
WASHINGTON -- A Republican who has helped shape controversial legislation overhauling financial regulation says he's confident a bipartisan agreement can be found.
But Tennessee's Sen. Bob Corker tells ABC's "Good Morning America" that both parties must work together to solve problems with the bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has condemned it as perpetuating a system of bailouts for large, failing banks and investment houses.
Corker urged lawmakers to "tone down the rhetoric a little bit." He said there are "loopholes" in the Senate version that could be construed as making future bailouts more likely. But Corker also said, "My sense is, Republicans do want to see a regulatory bill of this type come to fruition."
That is the recent refrain of Senate Banking Committee Republicans when asked about the financial services regulatory reform bill now pending in the Senate.
While Republicans have expressed continued willingness to work with committee Democrats to develop bipartisan legislation that would address the root causes of the recent financial crisis, they appear in no hurry to pass a bill鈥攁nd certainly not what they consider a 鈥渂ad bill鈥濃€攋ust for the sake of having a bill.
As a whole, Senate Banking Committee Republicans think the Dodd bill and the House-passed reform bill go too far. Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) seems well aware of that fact and, as reported previously, has constituted numerous working groups to hammer out the various issues. Those groups are currently working together to resolve outstanding issues, with varying degrees of progress.
While the committee has been expected to mark-up its version of the financial reform bill in February, that schedule will depend upon the level of progress and bipartisanship the committee is able to achieve. One major stumbling block has been the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)鈥攁 signature issue of the Obama Administration. Chairman Dodd has reportedly expressed a willingness to move away from the CFPA in a favor of giving more consumer protection authority to existing prudential regulators鈥攁 position also favored by committee Republicans.
Flipper, we need more people like you to save America from going under, people who are aware, open, and watchful.
The majority of the people I meet don't educate themselves and vote destructively, many don't vote at all and unabashedly admit it. People like you are the ones trying to keep democracy and America alive against the ignorant who are duped into destroying the greatest form of government the world has ever known although there is admittedly corruption and scandal infecting it, the ideal is still there.
Who will the rep senators voting for it be is something I will be watching more carefully, thanks to you for drawing my attention to this. Thanks.
This will be the second major legislation for the Obama administration. It will pass in the Senate with the help of a small handful of Republican Senators, among them Olympia Snowe.How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
It depends on how far Israel would be benefitted from it! You must agree to that. After all, itsn't that the criteria??How many Republican Senators will vote for the upcoming Financial Reform legislation and who will they be?
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vie鈥?/a>
Here you go Flipper:
In an appearance on Good Morning America today, Sen. Bob Corker (R - Tenn.) said that the current financial reform bill that the GOP has issued strong objections to can be fixed "in a week's time" and that both parties should "tone down the rhetoric a little bit."
Last month, Corker was displeased with his fellow GOP members, whom, he said, missed a big opportunity to introduce amendments to the Democrat's financial reform bill before it was sent to the Senate floor.
Still, Corker was optimistic that a bipartisan agreement on financial reform can be reached quickly. Here's the AP on Corker's appearance:
WASHINGTON -- A Republican who has helped shape controversial legislation overhauling financial regulation says he's confident a bipartisan agreement can be found.
But Tennessee's Sen. Bob Corker tells ABC's "Good Morning America" that both parties must work together to solve problems with the bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has condemned it as perpetuating a system of bailouts for large, failing banks and investment houses.
Corker urged lawmakers to "tone down the rhetoric a little bit." He said there are "loopholes" in the Senate version that could be construed as making future bailouts more likely. But Corker also said, "My sense is, Republicans do want to see a regulatory bill of this type come to fruition."
That is the recent refrain of Senate Banking Committee Republicans when asked about the financial services regulatory reform bill now pending in the Senate.
While Republicans have expressed continued willingness to work with committee Democrats to develop bipartisan legislation that would address the root causes of the recent financial crisis, they appear in no hurry to pass a bill鈥攁nd certainly not what they consider a 鈥渂ad bill鈥濃€攋ust for the sake of having a bill.
As a whole, Senate Banking Committee Republicans think the Dodd bill and the House-passed reform bill go too far. Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) seems well aware of that fact and, as reported previously, has constituted numerous working groups to hammer out the various issues. Those groups are currently working together to resolve outstanding issues, with varying degrees of progress.
While the committee has been expected to mark-up its version of the financial reform bill in February, that schedule will depend upon the level of progress and bipartisanship the committee is able to achieve. One major stumbling block has been the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)鈥攁 signature issue of the Obama Administration. Chairman Dodd has reportedly expressed a willingness to move away from the CFPA in a favor of giving more consumer protection authority to existing prudential regulators鈥攁 position also favored by committee Republicans.
Flipper, we need more people like you to save America from going under, people who are aware, open, and watchful.
The majority of the people I meet don't educate themselves and vote destructively, many don't vote at all and unabashedly admit it. People like you are the ones trying to keep democracy and America alive against the ignorant who are duped into destroying the greatest form of government the world has ever known although there is admittedly corruption and scandal infecting it, the ideal is still there.
Who will the rep senators voting for it be is something I will be watching more carefully, thanks to you for drawing my attention to this. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)