 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a
> corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those
> beliefs on their employees
You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
Must be a renewable energy thing. Certainly. They must have mounted
Benjamin Franklin's coffin to a shaft turning a generator, and now want
to see how fast they can get that poor old chap to spin.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:15:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/27/2014 4:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:34:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time
>>> they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it
>>> might somehow damage their chances of being reelected.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> It's like the phrase "representative democracy" means "our constituents
>> represent our views" (hence gerrymandering) rather than the other way
>> around.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> So, how long do you think it will be before "representative" comes to
> mean, "We frame a copy of a constitution, as a 'representation' of what
> we imagine the country should be like, but put a caption some place on
> it that says, 'Actual model may not reflect plans.'?" lol
Good question, hopefully it won't come to that.
> BTW, interesting fact from Arizona. Seems they have decided that an ID
> needs to be updated to be valid, for someone that is 21, regardless of
> which state issued it. So, as of June 24th, in Arizona, it doesn't
> matter if you have an ID, or license, which shows that you are 21 now,
> if you showed up from, say NY, with 4 year old ID, but which is still
> valid until, say 2015, which said you turned 21 yesterday, you have **no
> right** in Arizona to purchase alcohol, because your ID, is deemed
> "invalid" for that purpose, since there is more than a 30 day difference
> between the issuance date, and the time you turned 21.
>
> Yep, you can't get a new one, short of going home, you have the right,
> based on the law, to purchase, but you can't without the ID, which is
> now deemed invalid, due to you not updating it, which you didn't know
> you needed to do, before coming to the state..
>
> Rights? Oh, those are those things that they say you have, but you
> don't, unless they say they will let you have them, or have paid the
> right fee for? Got it...
That's actually something broader that I've wondered about for a while -
after I got laid off 3 years ago, I found that I had misplaced my social
security card. To get it replaced, I needed a photo ID, and my passport
was also expired, and I needed to renew my driver's license that year.
Now, in order to get a new social security card, an expired passport is
considered legal ID. But it isn't for a driver's license. But a social
security card *is* (which,for those outside the US, is a form of ID that
isn't a photo ID).
So ....
I had to renew my social security card first, then I could renew my
driver's license, and then I could renew my passport, as I recall. All
because the feds will take an expired passport but the state wouldn't.
My wife's driver's license was an entirely different fiasco. Her legal
name is "Amelia", but that's not the name on her birth certificate. When
she renewed her driver's license in Utah (2 months before we moved and
had to renew in Utah before moving to Washington - and then having to get
a new license here), they told her because her license and her passport
were expired, she had to have the incorrect name on her license. EVEN
THOUGH her previous license had her correct legal name on it. Her
passport also had her correct legal name on it, but because the passport
was expired, the DMV wouldn't accept it as valid ID either.
So she got it done with the wrong name on it. We moved, and Washington
did the same thing - current license has the wrong name on it, renewed
passport hadn't arrived yet, so they issued it with the wrong name.
In spite of actually having expired documentation with the correct name
on it, neither state would issue her a correct driver's license.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>
>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>> employees
>
> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
Hobby Lobby? Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.
> Must be a renewable energy thing. Certainly. They must have mounted
> Benjamin Franklin's coffin to a shaft turning a generator, and now want
> to see how fast they can get that poor old chap to spin.
LOL - yes, you're kidding about not having heard about it. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:06:31 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/26/2014 11:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing
>> their beliefs on someone else. I despise SCOTUS' recent decision
>> allowing a corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to
>> impose those beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing
>> their corporate- provided health care plan to cover certain forms of
>> contraception, because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I
>> might add - that those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions
>> (which they don't)).
>>
> And, of course, despite the supposed "limited scope" of this, it took
> the lawyers less than 10 seconds to expand that to include every
> bullshit lawsuit currently in the works that involves a company having
> to accommodate **anything** hey didn't like, and SCOTUS less than 24
> hours to not only approve of at least some of those expansions, but to
> create one of their own.
>
> But, its like.. limited, so, we don't really need to worry, and stuff..
Yep. As the judges in the minority predicted, even.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:01:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> What we need to do, I think, is instill the idea that actions speak
>> louder than words in the youth.
>>
> That is what lawyers, smear campaigns, public image consultants and
> keeping your own life as private as possible, while digging up someone
> else's as much as possible, are for, right?
Well, that brings up another issue, though - the news media telling
people what to think instead of reporting the actual facts.
>> Someone who's all in favor of "family values" but is actually a serial
>> cheating scumbag can be judged based on what they do, not what they say
>> they believe.
>>
> Snort.. Well, first of, I don't buy, myself, into the BS idea that the
> nuclear family is anything but a fiction, that people don't cheat a lot,
> and just fail to get caught, that relationships are some magic thing
> that last forever, or a long list of other things that would be required
> for the term "family values" to even mean a damn thing in the first
> place.
Well, there are ideals that we can strive towards, certainly. The
problem I have is when some politicians hold their opponents to a
standard and then it turns out that they've not lived their own lives to
that standard.
I've been lucky - not perfect, but lucky - and have a strong, stable
relationship that is a lasting relationship.
> Whether or not someone cheats on their wife, even serially
> doesn't say a damn thing about anything else they do. I would,
> personally vote for a bloody swinger, polyamorist, etc., if their ideas
> where not complete bullshit.
That's the thing - I'm more interested in the ideas than the
personality. Someone who's got a track record of implementing ideas I
can get behind is someone I can vote for. If they have problems keeping
it in their pants, well, as long as that doesn't affect their ability to
do their job, it's not my business.
> It would be really refreshing to deal with adults, instead of people
> that instantly become petulant 6 year olds, the moment someone is caught
> playing with someone else's toy.
Yes. This.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.07.2014 04:30, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>>
>>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>>> employees
>>
>> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
>
> Hobby Lobby? Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.
Huh? Hobby Lobby is obviously an American franchise (at least from what
I've just looked up on the 'net), so why sould I, as a German, know
anything about it?
As for that SCOTUS' (heck, even had to look that up, too) decision, over
here in Germany the media don't really cover such petty US American
internal affairs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing their
> beliefs on someone else. I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a
> corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those
> beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing their corporate-
> provided health care plan to cover certain forms of contraception,
> because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I might add - that
> those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions (which they don't)).
For some reason there has been in recent years a very strong push in
the US to advocate the notion that discrimination is ok as long as
it's done for Christian reasons. (Not even religious. Christian.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:57:33 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.07.2014 04:30, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:46:02 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Am 27.07.2014 08:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>>>
>>>> I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a corporation to hold
>>>> religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those beliefs on their
>>>> employees
>>>
>>> You're kiddin', right? Tell me that you're kiddin'...
>>
>> Hobby Lobby? Tell me you're kiddin' about not hearing about that.
>
> Huh? Hobby Lobby is obviously an American franchise (at least from what
> I've just looked up on the 'net), so why sould I, as a German, know
> anything about it?
Oh, right - I had you confused with someone who's here in the US.
So, yes, SCOTUS ruled a few weeks ago that Hobby Lobby could, as a
corporate entity, hold a religious belief, and that they could then make
business decisions based on that religious belief. So, the corporation
believes that abortion is murder, and that certain contraceptives cause
abortions (even though they factually don't), and that the company could
thus exclude coverage for those drugs from the company's health plans
because what they believe those drugs do (again, they don't) violates the
corporation's conscience.
As if corporations were living, breathing, thinking persons that could
believe something and have a conscience.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 01:02:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing
>> their beliefs on someone else. I despise SCOTUS' recent decision
>> allowing a corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to
>> impose those beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing
>> their corporate- provided health care plan to cover certain forms of
>> contraception, because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I
>> might add - that those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions
>> (which they don't)).
>
> For some reason there has been in recent years a very strong push in the
> US to advocate the notion that discrimination is ok as long as it's done
> for Christian reasons. (Not even religious. Christian.)
Yep. My theory is that they're losing, and they know it - so they're
fighting harder. It's only a matter of time, but until they have finally
"lost" (which generally means that they get treated like everyone else
rather than being treated "specially"), we're going to have a lot of this
kind of nonsense going on.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But.. We can't have a real national ID, because it would like.. let the
government screw us even more, or like be the, "mark of the beast", or
something. Sigh...
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
