It doesn't matter what the subsidies consist of. I already know anyways which is obvious from my initial post in this thread.

There is no logical fallacy either. If company would not exist without subsidies, employees of that company would not exist either. You seem to think that somehow they would.

Oh and nice try pretending you somehow became confused and thought comments about subsidies and employees of a company meant all employees everywhere or something. My first thought after reading that was if you were really that stupid. Then i remembered that this is slashdot so its entirety possible you are but it is more likely you are a pedantic troll. Give it a rest. Any idiot knows what was said and the context it was said in. Your argument fails any reasonable examination.

I reconciled it just fine. I'm not sure how many more ways it can be said; if the job would not exist without the subsidies, they are all going to the employees. You have failed to counter that and just mentioned that the employees could be employed somewhere else.

You are correct though. There is nothing more to intelligently discuss as it's already been said. Your deviations serve nothing but trying to hide reality.

Lol.. what you miss could fill a novel.

First, no one said the company was the sum of employee cost. If the company doesn't turn a profit, there will be no employee cost because it will not be in business. If the subsidies are the reason the company is making a profit and still open, then it is entirely reasonable to connect the subsidies to their pay.

Second the only thing not logical is your thinking. Sure they could get a job somewhere else. But that ignores the fact that they wouldn't be working for that company. It also ignores the fact that unemployment is not zero. Their reemployment elsewhere would either displace another worker if all things otherwise was the same or some other company would expand due to that company no longer being in business. That means they are not employed or the subsidies are depressing other businesses.

The rest of your post misses the fact that if all other costs caused them to not be profitable enough to stay in business without the subsidies, the jobs would only exist because of the subsidies. Again it is completely reasonable to connect them.

It is not a complicated process at all. If the company can not make money without the subsidies, it no longer exists. Those jobs no longer exist if they were even created in the first place. You can try to hide or ignore that all you want but it doesn't change anything.

Sure it does. The cost of the employees is not limited to their salaries. They would not be employed if the business didn't make some sort of economic sense and have work to do and that seems to be reliant on the subsidies.

Interesting. . You justify waste by pointing out waste. I bet your household budget is all rosey and you actually believe buying something you will never use because it's 30% off is saving you money.

Lol.. if that was all, you might have a point. Why do you believe the subsidies have stopped and no more will occure over the life of the company?

And that comes to what, over $360,000 per employee?

Here is the problem. Most of this subsidy money is not given to anyone or any companies. It is a waiver of future costs that wouldn't likely be collected anyways. Some is in the format of direct payment but those are generally to share the costs of getting people and companies to do what they wouldn't do already. So its pointless to really argue about it outside of whether we want someone or companies to act in certain ways while remaining free people.

Yes, you certainly have not tried to make make it secrete and it would have been considerably harder if you tried but not impossible because you are somewhat successful in life. Well, what i would consider successful anyways.

I was just wanting to make a point. I live about 3000 miles from you (no, not in florida either..lol.) and have no desire to go to jail over someone i don't even know so don't take anything i've done as a threat or anything. Government already collects substantial amounts of information and this data mining isn't limited to backwards idiots far away from us. It's right in our backyards sometimes without us even realizing it. Kids most of all probably do not understand just how much information they are giving away. Even well educated and successful adults don't realize it sometimes. Its even worse when you understand espionage tactics and information/inteligence gathering. The US army had a bunch of training films during WWII about how this is done. I foget the nae of the series, but it was three or four films long about interrogating prisoners who didn't say anything obvious but gave all sorts of information away. At the end, it listed all the information gathered and it was obvious how it was gathered in hindsight but completely obfuscated it practice. This is what happens with online presence being so persistent and accessible. Schools or government datamining social media should be scary even if we don't think we are doing anything wrong/illegal.

I'm not going to out you any further than the county you live in. I could, you have plastered it all over the web. But I don't see the point in it. There are not 20 glendales in ventura county. I can tell that you live in a condo with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms near near Heritage Park. 805 should mean something to you as should 484.

I think your missing the point though. It wasn't that I could find you, it's that people do not realize how much they are giving away to strangers and a school district near you is just as brazen about collecting this information or spying as orange county florida is. In other words, there are idiots all around us and if we are not careful, we might find ourselves sucked in with them.

If you want, I can post everything I know about you and tell you where I found it. You would likely think it is obvious afterwards. I just don't think it's wise to do so.

You shouldn't be that glad. Glendale school district did this same thing and that is near where you live. It actually should be more near to ventura county since glendale is in los angeles county than orange county would be.

http://snaptrends.com/schools-...

Oh, and no, we do not know each other, I just spent about 5 minutes scraping some information from the web to determine your approx location. Well, in case you were wondering that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The past is the future. Seriously, doesn't this somewhat remind us of the one room school house?

I know things are different but I think the younger kids will have an easier go with beimg somewhat exposed to more complicated concepts and likely see how or why completely alien in appearance processes come together.

Try turning the safe search filter on for google search and search for it. Thats essentially all this will be other than filtered at the ISP instead of a search engine.

Most people don't even know google turns this filter on by default. Other search engines do the same. Its not much different and any government wanting to know if you specify are a pervert will either get your records from Google or find the info on the computer / device itself and possibly without your knowledge.

Some ISP spam filters operate in the same way. On by default and push porn to the spam filter inbox.

Do you think businesses print money? They have to take in more than the cost of doing business is. How is this possible if it is not achieved by passing the costs along to the customers? There is nothing vile about it. It's simple economics.

My rebuttal was that years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.

So your opening sentence was flawed on that basis.

lol.. there is no flaw at all. What is so hard for you to understand here? I DID NOT give a complete accounting and did not intend to. For fucks sake, how many times does this need to be said? I do not care about before or anything. It is completely irrelevant.

Exactly, what you gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. My point exactly. Thanks for noticing.

Is it your point to echo my own point? If so, you win the internet. I said this in the original post.

That is what you said. Please refrain from saying that in the future. It would be most appreciated.

If you want to specifically limit yourself to certain periods or countries, where it is accurate, that would be much improved.

lol.. Stop, just stop pretending to be a moron. Sorry for going for the insults but you seem to be insisting things that never were said were. I never said in the beginning, or always or on this specific date, I never even said it was absolute, that is all inventions of your own minds. What I said is correct, in the past churches and religions generally controlled marriage. You know this to be true and admitted it but are stuck on some bullshit about periods when it wasn't.
Just drop it, you are not adding anything to the conversation and doing little more then pedantic trolling.

That seems to indicate me you think there are non-Christian religious institutions you want to consider, and that would take you outside of Ireland, or into its ancient history if you want to discuss Celtic marriage. I guess the jews weren't invented until well after the Christians. Is that what you are trying to say? And yes, pagan religions had marriage ceremonies too.

Anyone? Yes, they have, history has been asserted as the role model to follow, especially with marriage, which is treated as a "sacred" and "unchanging" and "eternal" tradition that is exclusively and solely the province of the "church" or other "religious institution" so yes, they have done so.

So that's why you are acting like an imbecile. You are pissed that people don't like gay marriage and banned it forever and somehow thing going after me will vindicate it or something. No, I nor anyone in this thread asserted history is any role model. For fucks sake, all I did was explain how modern government became entangled in something that they shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.

Go piss up a rope or something. You will be more productive doing that then you have demonstrated yourself to be here.

Do you want me to paste some of the filings made in regards Proposition 8, or Obergefell v. Hodges, or the advertising regarding this vote in Ireland? Or will you accept it as generally true without me doing so?

I can paste some crap too. Here is your problem, I simply do not care. I did not come here and say marriage should be a certain way or another way or whatever. I really do not care if you can marry your boyfriend, dog, sister, mother or whatever your fetish is. It doesn't matter to me one but at all.

Then I'll take this as implying a disavowal of those arguments, is that ok with you?

It doesn't matter, you took everything else and twisted it just so you can troll against it. I don't find having any opinion on how you twist and misaligned contexts will have any meaning other then further your trolling.

Sadly many don't know this. But no, even with the history being recognized as discretionary, you do need to get it right. Because sometimes it isn't what others, including yourself, say it is.

No I got it right. You are just hopelessly looking for an argument to win even if you have to create one that never happened.

PS, the Magna Carta, mentions marriages and sets conditions thereby, including the King's involvement. I kinda consider it part of the English legal system, and I wouldn't consider it entirely religious either.

Actually, the magna carta gives the catholic church power over marital matters. It only mentions heirs in ward (
not of age) and a widows inheritance and the abilities of spouses to appeal for the life of their condemned spouse. Not the shell shocker you think it is and truthfully, it starts off strengthening my claims.