I thought GP was making a subtle satirical point until I reached the end
"Non catastrophic AGW" is the answer, "catastrophic AGW" is a different answer. It's not the question. The question is "What is the effect of humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere?". You don't get to decide whether or not climate change will have an effect on the earth before doing the study. That's not how science works. You get the money to study the effects of climate change and then you find out "Surprise! Dumping a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem." And then you publish a bunch of data that led you to that conclusion and other people (97%) agree and we all move on and do something about it.
What does Google offer that you don't? Despite thinking you are, maybe you're not offering the real market rate. Or maybe your benefits suck.
The problem is worse around me. The construction companies put up cones and signs along several miles of road while only working on a small portion at a time. To make matters even worse, these construction zones are kept in place for years where weeks or even months go by with minimal or no work being done. So there are signs everywhere but they are irrelevant 90% of the time so no one follows the lowered speed limit.
Like "Tiffany Blue", UPS has its branding associated with a particular color. There's a difference. People don't prefer colors so people will have an easier time recognizing them. Their favorite color appeals to their subjective tastes. Saying a business has subjective tastes is like saying the number 8 has a crush on 9. You are anthropomorphizing the business despite it being a legal entity and not a person.
I'm aware of LLC's that can do that so they don't have to pay corporate taxes on the profit and then pay income tax by transferring the money to the owner. However, the benefit of such a company is still that your net income is taxed rather than your gross. Without a corporate status, you would be paying income tax on any and all revenue but with the tax benefits of an LLC, you get to write off your operating expenses and or money routed into business expansion instead of your own pocket.
Can you spend the company money on whatever you want, like a new house or a boat for yourself? No. That's embezzlement. The money belongs to the company until it is paid out to you. You may be able to make that decision, but the company exists as a separate entity from you for legal and tax purposes. That separate entity doesn't have a religion any more than it has a favorite color. It is not a person.
Time to start the Church Ad Absurdum. Wherein its followers can do anything and everything they want as religious practice, everything is sacred, and everything is against the religion.
Yes, because we all know that there are more jobs than employable people and we can all make the decision about which job to take based on which has the best health coverage rather than needs like food and housing...
Sure, the employees can still buy contraception, at a higher price and out of their own pocket. Hobby Lobby is using its position of power over the employees disadvantage those that need contraceptive care and force the owners' religious views on them.
In one scenario, Hobby Lobby pays the insurance company who pays the pharmacy who gives the contraception to the employee. In the second scenario, Hobby Lobby pays the employee who pays the pharmacy who gives the contraception to the employee. Hobby Lobby is the same distance from the use of contraception in both cases. The only difference is that in the second case the company is using its position of power to disadvantage the employee who has to pay a higher cost out of pocket for an important medial good.
Come on, guys. Post the damn transcript instead of a stupid video.
Next year may create an entirely new set of problems for tech.
Problems like how to treat their employees like human beings rather than disposable trash?
As a libertarian though my main issue is really with the state having to much power in the first place. Private security forces are just fine, but they should work for private groups. Your home owners association should be hiring security to keep your neighborhood safe for example, they naturally don't get the legal protection and police powers a 'state' agency would have, which is a powerful and important check on them and you.
Wow. As if the poor parts of town weren't crime-ridden enough already, you want them to be practically un-policed because they can't afford it? I'd much prefer my money go into a generalized geographical pool so I don't have to be escorted by a private bodyguard whenever I leave my safe little bubble of a neighborhood.
Better yet, make the law that without the camera on, the cop loses all privileges normally enjoyed by law enforcement officers. If he injures or kills anyone, he goes to jail for murder or assault like anyone else.