Nah, i'm plenty old enough and remeber quit well.
I don't think he claimed it was leftist government rather that it was government the left supports. Its a small but significant difference as the government can be left or right and its the left that wants more of it.
The bigger the state(government) the smaller the citizen. What you said is also true but neglected where it leaves us.
Not true. Clothes are designed to hide flaws in the human body. Most women are flawed to some degree. Air brushing models and makeup to hide some of them have been around for quite a while.
Now i could understand your conclusion about him maybe being gay if he said something along the lines of a man in clothing is more attractive than a naked woman but he didn't.
Lol.. no i willl not go out with you.
Seriously, are you going to a/s/l me?
I'm too old for you
There are few musicians/bands i will pay to see in concert any more. But i love going to festivals and watching performers. I love hitting bars to watch local talent. I don't even care if the sound is imperfect or the acustics reminds you of dogs barking at cats having screaming loud sex. Its the ecperience of seeing people give it their best and having a hell of a good time in the process.
The last major concert i went to, it seemed like my $80 for tickets bothered the band or something. It was almost like they had something better to do. I know i have something better to do. Long live the garage bands and festivals. Even the has been headliners stuck doing county fairs are better then most headliners in my opinion.
Everyone got entranced about it being over a blowjob instead lieing to a court and there was a big public backlash costing quite a few republican seats in congress. It is also probably why gore did so well in the election, it severely polarised the country.
The plans i saw where outrageously stupid. Their annual cost is more than i spent on healthcare the last five years combined (about $245 per month). And to top it off, they have a $6000 deductable and $6000 out of pocket expenses. That means over one third of my income last year before i see any real advantage if i had to use it. I had catastrophic with a $2000 deductable and only paid $135 a month and it covered broken bones, stitches, heart attacks, strokes and the rest of the crap that would have to happen in order to jack my expenses up enough to see a real benefit from the policies i saw on the exchange.
I wouldn't mind coverage but i don't consider this as any improvement. For years i didn't want insurance because i spent the money on other things. I'm sure others did too.
Huh????? Nixon was never impeached. The house never voted to impeach him. There was talk that he would be impeached but Nixon resigned before that happened.
As for failing to act, either the house or senate can propose a law to stop the NSA. The problem is not many members see problems with it so attempts go nowhere fast.
And yes, the republicans are afraid to impeach Obama because of what happened last time. But that is the reality we have to live with when most of the nation can be tricked into believing lieing in a court of law (which clinton lost his law license because of) was only about getting some strange.
Most police i know don't like them because they take a job from a person.
As for the monitary scheme, you can see that in the debate in ohio's legislature. One side of the isle actually said banning them would deny cities of a significant source of income at a time the state is restricting funding to those cities. And i bet your first guess to the party affiliatation of that law maker would be wrong (Hint, the republicans in Ohio seem to be against them). In my home town, the concept of revenue certainly was brought up as a plus to installing them. We tried to force the city council to provide a separate line item for the revenue from them with no luck and people regularly time the lights to see if they change. They were installed at the busiest intersections that seem to have the least accidents. Most of them have been from rear end colisions and when traffic is thick, you are lucky to get more that 15mph between lights.
Well, not really the only recourse. Moving on to better jobs is another. But i'm not arguing the merits for or against, just commenting on how unhealthy it appears to be and how it perpetuates a condition. If you were constantly at war with your spouse, do you see the relationship lasting? I would think it would be long past time to separate.
When the marriage is based around resentment and getting one over the other, it is often best to just end it with a divorce. This is no different, it is just an unhealthy relationship and breads discontent.
Just an observation. No saying one is right or left or anything. Just that it carries a lot of negetive baggage with it.
Lol.. you have so many misconceptions it isn't funny. The minimum wage was created to curb minority companies under bidding bloated established white companies. It created a base level that barred those willing to work for less from taking well paying jobs. Mandating a prevailing wage in government contracts was much the same. In more modern times, the minimum had been used to stealth tax increases as both the employee and the employer has taxes associated with pay that does not get refunded.
Second, union busting has never been popular in recent times. People started seeing unions in a negetive light when Reagan busted the air traffic controllers specifically because they walked off the job and left people in danger in planes in the air with no one directing their movements in a reletively tight airspace. That is when people started seeing that 90% of what unions were needed for was already encoded into law and their remaining usefulness was mostly about greed of income. But what really killed the unions was downsizing in the 80s where the bloat was consolidated and made efficient. This lead to companies poping up that could compete far better than most established union shops and they took an even deeper hit with the offshoring craze that pitted union wages against third world wages. Outside of the traffic controllers showing how wreckless the pursuit of greed can be, it had little to do with the fall of the unions.
As for income inequality, the majority of the income being considered too large is performance based. It is stock options, bonuses and so one attached to a base pay. It was originally done this way in order to shirk pay obligations if the executive failed to properly run the company (with some tax strategy). The problem is it an incentive to keep wages low and stagnant. It isn't so much the inequal amounts that is the effective problem but what makes those amounts so inequal. Now i know you are looking at fixing it meaning increasing worker pay but the realities will likely be decreasing exec pay and simply giving them prefered stock where they get the same but it is counted as dividends separate from their pay.
The only way to fix this is to tie employee wages to the same or similar bonus structures. This way, even if the ceo makes 20,000 times more than the base hourly pay for workers, those workers get rewarded the same. I have seen people who actually do get profit sharing earn as much as 2 times thier anual salary fron the profit. Mostly it seems to be one third to two thirds more.
Or they could create separate staffing companies and hire temp workers with few regular workers.
But it is no wonder companies have so much anymosity towards employees when they pick the busiest time of the year to stop work. It completely smacks of the we want to hurt you vibe that is generally met with hostile return. I bet someone is attempting to find ways to fire the lot of the strikers without violating law.
So what you are saying is that the minimum wage jobs are working out quite well for them?
I agree that welfare in the US allows companies to not pay a living wage to employees and it effectivly subsidizes those companies. But that is the result of half assed socialism not the companies taking advantage of it. Without those social services making up the differences, those jobs would either be relegated to extra money jobs, jobs for kids looking for experience, or gone altogether. It only becomes a problem when it distorts the job markets to the point that minimum wage jobs become career opertunities. This is compounded by the increasing concept of single person/parent households and the ever increasing expectations of them.
Stipulations are not illegal though. You can loan me money and i can agree that all disputes to the contract or repayment be settled in your home town. Likewise, you can agree to not take legal actions if repayment isn't made according to the contract. We both can be held to those terms if we violate them. That in and of itself is not illegal even if local laws provide the means to act contrary to the agreed contract.
The issue here may be that by agreeing to terms that specify jurisdiction, they may have waived the rights to sue outside that jurisdiction. But that doesn't mean the government is prevented from prosecuting or fining. I don't think google will get out of the suit should the case be moved, but they may gain an advantage. But iirc, most courts will ignore jurisdiction clauses if it disproportionatly creates a hardship for one of the psrties.