I dont it is just the law.18 year old is not a biological adult he/she are still adolescents.They still have an adolescents brain.If you do a wekapedia you will see tht a biological adult starts at 19 or 20.Why cant the law consider you a legal adult at biological adult hood.I feel 18 is still inmature and litle early to be considered an adult.
Answers:
Parents that don't allow their children to grow into adults have children that aren't mature enough to behave maturely at 18.
I was on my own at 18 paying rent and a car payment, groceries and taking care of myself. How are kids so different today?
You should be. Society gives you the chance to prove it at 18.
depends on how u were raised and where u are in your own life. I for one and def much more mature because of the things I have seen and been through
Maturity has little to do with age. However I think 18 is a good age to let people know they will be fully responsible for their actions. And I think the underlying reason it's so low is so the Gov't can justify sending teenagers to war.
at 18, you capable of getting a job and becoming independent. immaturity has nothing to do with that.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Do You Agree or Disagree?
IF you take a look at at the headline on yahoo a boy was suspended for hugging his Girl friend Because of a NO TOUCHING rule now that is very rediculous in my opinion if you got a second check out the story and give me your opinion Do you Agree or Disagree all OPINION ARE WELCOME negative and positive please Be appropriate in your comments
Answers:
Are you asking whether the policy is fair or is it fair that he was punished for violating the policy? I agree with somebody getting punished for a policy violation if in fact they committed the offense. Also, I agree with the policy, but I think the penalty is rather harsh. I would start with after school detention for first offense, then impose more strict punishment for additional offenses.
I saw that article. I think that particular student got a warning.
I think it's an extreme reaction. However, it relates to a lot of the problems educators face. It's an inner city school that has 1100 students where 800 should be. My school faces similiar problems we have 500 students where 200 should be. There aren't enough bathrooms, seats in the cafeteria, too many desks and not enough room to walk as a teacher, too many people is hard to teach.
We should be focusing on why they needed to adopt such extreme measures rather than simply reprimanding them.
I don't agree, believe me if the boy was hugging another boy
it would be ballyhooed as to how tolerant our society had become.
Didn't read the article, but assume from other comments that it was a school no touching rule, and that the young man had been warned or previously reprimanded. If that's the case, then he ought to have been suspended. The school officials can't be put in a position where they're trying to differentiate one kind of touching from another on a case-by-case basis. It'll lead to people claiming that the school is treating people differently.
The rule is silly, but not as his father asserted unconstitutional. A more reasonable rule would be no harmful or offense touching.
Mala prohibita, eh? But it's too harsh a penalty.
Answers:
Are you asking whether the policy is fair or is it fair that he was punished for violating the policy? I agree with somebody getting punished for a policy violation if in fact they committed the offense. Also, I agree with the policy, but I think the penalty is rather harsh. I would start with after school detention for first offense, then impose more strict punishment for additional offenses.
I saw that article. I think that particular student got a warning.
I think it's an extreme reaction. However, it relates to a lot of the problems educators face. It's an inner city school that has 1100 students where 800 should be. My school faces similiar problems we have 500 students where 200 should be. There aren't enough bathrooms, seats in the cafeteria, too many desks and not enough room to walk as a teacher, too many people is hard to teach.
We should be focusing on why they needed to adopt such extreme measures rather than simply reprimanding them.
I don't agree, believe me if the boy was hugging another boy
it would be ballyhooed as to how tolerant our society had become.
Didn't read the article, but assume from other comments that it was a school no touching rule, and that the young man had been warned or previously reprimanded. If that's the case, then he ought to have been suspended. The school officials can't be put in a position where they're trying to differentiate one kind of touching from another on a case-by-case basis. It'll lead to people claiming that the school is treating people differently.
The rule is silly, but not as his father asserted unconstitutional. A more reasonable rule would be no harmful or offense touching.
Mala prohibita, eh? But it's too harsh a penalty.
Do websites have to tell you if they collect ientifying information from your computer?
Answers:
No, but there are various guidelines for certain kinds of businesses to have privacy statements where they tell you what information they will take from you, then government agencies check up on them to find out if they are being truthful, depending on how many people complain.
So for example, if Yahoo has a privacy policy, and you join in agreement with it, then Yahoo changes the policy and you don't notice it changed, your tough luck.
Also, lots of businesses don't know what they are doing, or claim to not know what they are doing. In a lot of the breaches, where our credit card info was handed over to the crooks, the companies claim they did not know what the software they bought and installed was doing.
Nope, you might as well expect it. Even if you make your restriction settings very private (cookies, etc.), I'd still be careful. If you have no idea what I'm talking about above, find a computer geek friend who will gladly explain it to you and how to "help" prevent it.
Do we truely have 'Free Speech' in England?
Even if we as individuals can say all we want, if there are people in England unable legally, or through fear of violence from others, to say what they want to say. Can we still claim to have free speech in England?
Answers:
No, it's illegal to deny the holocaust, to say racist/sexist things etc.
People say that this is good, which may be right, but without being able to say these things we have no free speech. Harsh but true.
...as long as you speak the Word! ...of our Lord Almighty!
Nope
not free speach on this site u have to be careful of what u say
Great illusion.
Its like that anywhere. At least you legally have the soap box to stand on. I just have my bathroom mirror.
there is no such thing as 100% free speech
especially on YA
If it is anything like it is here, i would say not any more.
Add a degree of politically correctness and you are limited to what you can say.
Probably not, but I think Free Speech is something we aim for, rather than something we ever actually achieve.
Unless you live alone and never get into contact with anyone else, you will take into account other people's feelings and reactions before you speak. That's not always a bad thing.
No one really has freedom of speech anywhere, not even in the US. Something that you say may offend someone and then there are reprocussions for it later. I think its the same way in the US, we just say things and get put on television for it
Not now no..too much red tape as regards racial equality
well whats is real free speech..if by that you mean i can say whatever i want to you..? ...or freedom within certain bounderies.?.theres enough anger etc in the world so it cant be free to say anything..
No! I don't think so! It may not be illeagle to say certain things, but if you voice an oppinion that is against the masses woe betide you!
NO WE DONT THE ONLY PPL WHO DO ARE THE IMMEGRANTS AND FOREIGNERS AND THEY CANT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH SO WE ARE ALL PHUCKED, CANT WAIT TO GET OUT THE U.K!
no we dont, personally I'll always voice my opinion because Im not scared and Im not worried about what people think, but alot of people are and dont always speak up. People need to understand that we all have different opinions, if we were all the same and agreed with everything life would be bloody boring :)
Free speech involves responsibility and common sense. Not all people are going to agree on what is offensive or not. By being civil toward others, we become a civilization.
No no no!As you know its freedom of speech as long as you dont say too much
i feel really strongly about this issue and believe that no, we dont have that freedom to say what we like due to either fear of the authorities or fear of our own kind. people should be able to make themselves heard as individuals.
No.
Far too much to go into on this subject.
Gatherings are limited in size, protests are not allowed near certain areas, shop signs must be in metric not imperial.
The list is endless.
In one job centre, a business owner was told she could not ask for a ''hard working'' person, as it is discriminating against those who do not work hard.
Good question.
Legally yes, but I think there was never real "free speech" anywhere. One always has to take other people into consideration. Try telling all the people you think are ugly what you think about them. Hurting or offending people has consequences, free speech is Utopian.
Nah.
the government of england , not only england , almost the rest of the countries know that
Free Speech = Rebellion ( somewhat )
Even democratic country wont give their citizens 100% rights to talk what they wanna talk.
I think this question was inspired by the venom spat against the Mc Canns by several Internet sickos.
Take a look at the Libel Law in the UK and others should take care what they say
in england, we have free speech until the coppers 'nick' us, or we get our point across. Tbh, we hardly have free speech cos the coppers always claim its about to get violent, even when the protestors are still claiming to be peaceful. What a country we live in.
no
this country has lost free speech. you may speak freely, but only if the government agrees with what your are saying! (makes sense?don't think so) an elderly man was arrested last year because he call a statement made by the government 'nonsense'! the term 'Christmas' may now be banned from schools in case it offends any people of the Muslim faith, although any Muslims i have spoken to agree this is a ridiculous idea! this country is changing from a democracy to a dictatorship
Yes. Right now you can pretty much say what you want provided that it is not libellous or an incitement to violence. If you air an opinion that is at odds with the government/media brainwashing you can expect to be vilified by the media but you probably won`t be tortured or imprisoned. It takes guts to take a stand against a Government as right wing as ours but there are truly courageous people who have done it and lived to tell the tale. For example George Galloway.
Next year the situation may have changed as Britain becomes more and more a clone of the U.S. I think in another ten years and you may well be stoned to death for saying JEHOVAH. Let`s enjoy it whilst we can JEHOVA JEHOVA JEHOVA.
My grandad who fought in WW1%262 said
" This is a free country as long as you do as you are told"
We have not had Free speach since before Cromwell became protector and even then couldnt criticise the crown.
Sadly No is the answer to that. There is far too much Political Correctness involved. Our Government uses that to control the ideas and opinions we are allowed to express.
Freedom of Speech is just an Illusion.
Piltdown man, are you obsessed with the Mccann's?
No we don't. There can be no criticism of any minority race, religion, sexuality, or creed, and absolutely no discussion about the same. You are not free to criticise the government, as the tabliods will slaughter you.
Answers:
No, it's illegal to deny the holocaust, to say racist/sexist things etc.
People say that this is good, which may be right, but without being able to say these things we have no free speech. Harsh but true.
...as long as you speak the Word! ...of our Lord Almighty!
Nope
not free speach on this site u have to be careful of what u say
Great illusion.
Its like that anywhere. At least you legally have the soap box to stand on. I just have my bathroom mirror.
there is no such thing as 100% free speech
especially on YA
If it is anything like it is here, i would say not any more.
Add a degree of politically correctness and you are limited to what you can say.
Probably not, but I think Free Speech is something we aim for, rather than something we ever actually achieve.
Unless you live alone and never get into contact with anyone else, you will take into account other people's feelings and reactions before you speak. That's not always a bad thing.
No one really has freedom of speech anywhere, not even in the US. Something that you say may offend someone and then there are reprocussions for it later. I think its the same way in the US, we just say things and get put on television for it
Not now no..too much red tape as regards racial equality
well whats is real free speech..if by that you mean i can say whatever i want to you..? ...or freedom within certain bounderies.?.theres enough anger etc in the world so it cant be free to say anything..
No! I don't think so! It may not be illeagle to say certain things, but if you voice an oppinion that is against the masses woe betide you!
NO WE DONT THE ONLY PPL WHO DO ARE THE IMMEGRANTS AND FOREIGNERS AND THEY CANT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH SO WE ARE ALL PHUCKED, CANT WAIT TO GET OUT THE U.K!
no we dont, personally I'll always voice my opinion because Im not scared and Im not worried about what people think, but alot of people are and dont always speak up. People need to understand that we all have different opinions, if we were all the same and agreed with everything life would be bloody boring :)
Free speech involves responsibility and common sense. Not all people are going to agree on what is offensive or not. By being civil toward others, we become a civilization.
No no no!As you know its freedom of speech as long as you dont say too much
i feel really strongly about this issue and believe that no, we dont have that freedom to say what we like due to either fear of the authorities or fear of our own kind. people should be able to make themselves heard as individuals.
No.
Far too much to go into on this subject.
Gatherings are limited in size, protests are not allowed near certain areas, shop signs must be in metric not imperial.
The list is endless.
In one job centre, a business owner was told she could not ask for a ''hard working'' person, as it is discriminating against those who do not work hard.
Good question.
Legally yes, but I think there was never real "free speech" anywhere. One always has to take other people into consideration. Try telling all the people you think are ugly what you think about them. Hurting or offending people has consequences, free speech is Utopian.
Nah.
the government of england , not only england , almost the rest of the countries know that
Free Speech = Rebellion ( somewhat )
Even democratic country wont give their citizens 100% rights to talk what they wanna talk.
I think this question was inspired by the venom spat against the Mc Canns by several Internet sickos.
Take a look at the Libel Law in the UK and others should take care what they say
in england, we have free speech until the coppers 'nick' us, or we get our point across. Tbh, we hardly have free speech cos the coppers always claim its about to get violent, even when the protestors are still claiming to be peaceful. What a country we live in.
no
this country has lost free speech. you may speak freely, but only if the government agrees with what your are saying! (makes sense?don't think so) an elderly man was arrested last year because he call a statement made by the government 'nonsense'! the term 'Christmas' may now be banned from schools in case it offends any people of the Muslim faith, although any Muslims i have spoken to agree this is a ridiculous idea! this country is changing from a democracy to a dictatorship
Yes. Right now you can pretty much say what you want provided that it is not libellous or an incitement to violence. If you air an opinion that is at odds with the government/media brainwashing you can expect to be vilified by the media but you probably won`t be tortured or imprisoned. It takes guts to take a stand against a Government as right wing as ours but there are truly courageous people who have done it and lived to tell the tale. For example George Galloway.
Next year the situation may have changed as Britain becomes more and more a clone of the U.S. I think in another ten years and you may well be stoned to death for saying JEHOVAH. Let`s enjoy it whilst we can JEHOVA JEHOVA JEHOVA.
My grandad who fought in WW1%262 said
" This is a free country as long as you do as you are told"
We have not had Free speach since before Cromwell became protector and even then couldnt criticise the crown.
Sadly No is the answer to that. There is far too much Political Correctness involved. Our Government uses that to control the ideas and opinions we are allowed to express.
Freedom of Speech is just an Illusion.
Piltdown man, are you obsessed with the Mccann's?
No we don't. There can be no criticism of any minority race, religion, sexuality, or creed, and absolutely no discussion about the same. You are not free to criticise the government, as the tabliods will slaughter you.
Do we still need to have a right to bear arms in the US constitution?
If you were suddenly granted the power to edit the constitution as you saw fit, would it stay or go?
Answers:
Not just yes, but hell frikin YES!
WOW you got your little gun hateing party kinda rained on here didn't you? Not one person I read above me says yes get rid of them, brings a tear to my eye, nice to be in such good company!
Look, sweety, if your affraid of guns, the best thing to do is learn about them, isn't that what you'd do with just about anything else? "Know thine enemy" Sun Tsu from The Art of War. If you learn enough about guns I promise you'll want one and won't fear them anymore, and you and your loved ones will be safer for it. In the code of boshido, it is said that the main reason a man wants to pick up a sword is to protect something he loves, same goes for guns.
When our minds are powerful enough to kill a bear with our thoughts, then the liberals might have a logical leg to stand on about getting rid of guns, but then why would we need them? The next time you go out of doors less than 5 miles from bear territory, try and remember a bear can eat you and leave long before the cops can get to you to save your gun-ignorant butt.
The next time you want to do something the government doesn't like just remember its OUR guns that allow you to be able to, just think how little your cardboard protest sign will do against Government assualt rifles.
Live and let live, please for freedoms sake!
It's not whether we need it or not, it's a constitutional right and in this time of not-to-subtle fascism; we should be guarding all of our rights with ferocity. And no, I would never edit the Constitution--maybe add to it.
The answer is, according to John Ashcroft, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Personally if I could edit the constitution, I might change a lot of things, but the 2nd Amendment would be edited to make it clear that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Which means, virtually no changes except modern language.
it would stay, the main reason for the right to bear arms was to guarantee the American people the ability to defend themselves against a government that became out of control. It was actually granted for the states to have and keep a well armed militia, which became known as the national guard. It is now under Federal Control, which can exercise power over the states by using their own well armed militia against them. so basically the right to bear arms has already been done away with, without a constitutional amendment.
It would stay, and possibly be put in words that can less easily be manipulated to try to eliminate the right.
The US Supreme Court has on numerous occasions re-affirmed that the individual citizen has the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Jurisdictions that forbid such are in violation of US Law, and in those cases that have been actually heard by the Supreme Court have time and again ruled that way.
We certainly need the right to bear arms. I would change the constitution and amend the 2nd amendment. I would require that every household have a gun. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a way to protect the people from their own government. I was a way of ensuring that no dictatorship arose in this country. It gave the people a way of fighting its own government if it went bad. The 2nd amendment is part of the checks and balances that ensures that democracy never dies. Besides, what country would possibly be stupid enough to invade the U.S., knowing that the citizens are armed and would fight them. The second amendment keeps our shores safe from foriegn invaders.
It would stay, along with the freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc.
If powers were to be granted, I'd rather have the power to make elected officials enforce laws we already have on the books.
I'd also like to make them follow through on processes their supposed to complete.
If they had followed through on the investigation of Seung-Hui Cho from earlier incidents, there's a fair chance the murders at Norris Hall would never have happened.
But because government didn't do their job the first time, we're supposed to make new laws that burden the law-abiding citizen. Then we will have additional laws that don't do squat, because their not enforced.
Ask the people of new Orleans who were left defenseless against gangs and looters! YES WE NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT! on that note, if my guns are taken away and i have no way to defend myself, will I get the constitutional right to sue my local law enforcement for failing to protect me?
yes it would stay if we loose our right to bear arms what happens if the government decides to take over and rule as a dictatorship or our government falls? we would be helpless to defend ourselves or our family and loved ones! If or military fell or was too weak to fight effectively and the enemy was on or home ground-- what could we do? As for me i will fight for my loved ones or die trying!! I would rather die as a free man then be butchered like a helpless lamb!!
Absolutely. Anyone who has researched this should know that the main purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the people remained "the true sovereigns of the country." And that a tyrannical government could not deprive the people of their natural rights such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," etc. etc. Secondly it provides for the personal protection of self, family, property reducing the need for law enforcement to be omnipresent to prevent crimes. It's worthy to note that the courts have repeatedly made rulings such as this:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
The only possible change I could see would be adding more explicit language that makes it more clear and something to the effect that there shall be no laws passed which restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of good standing (i.e. there could be restrictions upon violent felons, etc.).
It's pretty well known that gun restrictions/laws/bans have no effect whatsoever on criminals who will obtain a gun illegally, and in many cases easier than any law-abiding person can.
Read the Parker vs DC court opinion. A link to the full text can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parker_v._d...
Keep it. I would add amendments not take away.
Answers:
Not just yes, but hell frikin YES!
WOW you got your little gun hateing party kinda rained on here didn't you? Not one person I read above me says yes get rid of them, brings a tear to my eye, nice to be in such good company!
Look, sweety, if your affraid of guns, the best thing to do is learn about them, isn't that what you'd do with just about anything else? "Know thine enemy" Sun Tsu from The Art of War. If you learn enough about guns I promise you'll want one and won't fear them anymore, and you and your loved ones will be safer for it. In the code of boshido, it is said that the main reason a man wants to pick up a sword is to protect something he loves, same goes for guns.
When our minds are powerful enough to kill a bear with our thoughts, then the liberals might have a logical leg to stand on about getting rid of guns, but then why would we need them? The next time you go out of doors less than 5 miles from bear territory, try and remember a bear can eat you and leave long before the cops can get to you to save your gun-ignorant butt.
The next time you want to do something the government doesn't like just remember its OUR guns that allow you to be able to, just think how little your cardboard protest sign will do against Government assualt rifles.
Live and let live, please for freedoms sake!
It's not whether we need it or not, it's a constitutional right and in this time of not-to-subtle fascism; we should be guarding all of our rights with ferocity. And no, I would never edit the Constitution--maybe add to it.
The answer is, according to John Ashcroft, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Personally if I could edit the constitution, I might change a lot of things, but the 2nd Amendment would be edited to make it clear that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Which means, virtually no changes except modern language.
it would stay, the main reason for the right to bear arms was to guarantee the American people the ability to defend themselves against a government that became out of control. It was actually granted for the states to have and keep a well armed militia, which became known as the national guard. It is now under Federal Control, which can exercise power over the states by using their own well armed militia against them. so basically the right to bear arms has already been done away with, without a constitutional amendment.
It would stay, and possibly be put in words that can less easily be manipulated to try to eliminate the right.
The US Supreme Court has on numerous occasions re-affirmed that the individual citizen has the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Jurisdictions that forbid such are in violation of US Law, and in those cases that have been actually heard by the Supreme Court have time and again ruled that way.
We certainly need the right to bear arms. I would change the constitution and amend the 2nd amendment. I would require that every household have a gun. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a way to protect the people from their own government. I was a way of ensuring that no dictatorship arose in this country. It gave the people a way of fighting its own government if it went bad. The 2nd amendment is part of the checks and balances that ensures that democracy never dies. Besides, what country would possibly be stupid enough to invade the U.S., knowing that the citizens are armed and would fight them. The second amendment keeps our shores safe from foriegn invaders.
It would stay, along with the freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc.
If powers were to be granted, I'd rather have the power to make elected officials enforce laws we already have on the books.
I'd also like to make them follow through on processes their supposed to complete.
If they had followed through on the investigation of Seung-Hui Cho from earlier incidents, there's a fair chance the murders at Norris Hall would never have happened.
But because government didn't do their job the first time, we're supposed to make new laws that burden the law-abiding citizen. Then we will have additional laws that don't do squat, because their not enforced.
Ask the people of new Orleans who were left defenseless against gangs and looters! YES WE NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT! on that note, if my guns are taken away and i have no way to defend myself, will I get the constitutional right to sue my local law enforcement for failing to protect me?
yes it would stay if we loose our right to bear arms what happens if the government decides to take over and rule as a dictatorship or our government falls? we would be helpless to defend ourselves or our family and loved ones! If or military fell or was too weak to fight effectively and the enemy was on or home ground-- what could we do? As for me i will fight for my loved ones or die trying!! I would rather die as a free man then be butchered like a helpless lamb!!
Absolutely. Anyone who has researched this should know that the main purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the people remained "the true sovereigns of the country." And that a tyrannical government could not deprive the people of their natural rights such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," etc. etc. Secondly it provides for the personal protection of self, family, property reducing the need for law enforcement to be omnipresent to prevent crimes. It's worthy to note that the courts have repeatedly made rulings such as this:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
The only possible change I could see would be adding more explicit language that makes it more clear and something to the effect that there shall be no laws passed which restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of good standing (i.e. there could be restrictions upon violent felons, etc.).
It's pretty well known that gun restrictions/laws/bans have no effect whatsoever on criminals who will obtain a gun illegally, and in many cases easier than any law-abiding person can.
Read the Parker vs DC court opinion. A link to the full text can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parker_v._d...
Keep it. I would add amendments not take away.
Do we renters need a law for landlord regarding mice and bedbugs ?
landlords must give back rent ,scurity ,moving fees, medical fees ; for the first 2 month moving in .
Answers:
landlord/tenant laws vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you likely have protection for the right to habitability. If the place is unliveable, you should demand the conditions be fixed. Some states you can withhold rental payments for fixing the problem, or the condition may be so bad it results in constructive eviction. you need to find out your local laws though.
yes. you need a law.
yes you do. I am sure your not going to want to live in a house full of mice and bedbugs. I would sue 'em, live somewhere else, inform as many people as you can especially people who live there and people who are planning on living in that area, and make them call a extermenator.
Most states have a "warranty of habitability" for residential leases, under which a tenant can recover damages if the residence is not reasonably fit for human habitation. In other words, get thee to a personal injury attorney and sue that slumlord.
Answers:
landlord/tenant laws vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you likely have protection for the right to habitability. If the place is unliveable, you should demand the conditions be fixed. Some states you can withhold rental payments for fixing the problem, or the condition may be so bad it results in constructive eviction. you need to find out your local laws though.
yes. you need a law.
yes you do. I am sure your not going to want to live in a house full of mice and bedbugs. I would sue 'em, live somewhere else, inform as many people as you can especially people who live there and people who are planning on living in that area, and make them call a extermenator.
Most states have a "warranty of habitability" for residential leases, under which a tenant can recover damages if the residence is not reasonably fit for human habitation. In other words, get thee to a personal injury attorney and sue that slumlord.
Do we really have to have a no smoking sticker in a company car?
and I'm not talking about the rest of europe who do what they like!
Answers:
YEP U DO BECAUSE IT IS CLASSED AS A PLACE OF WORK, SUCKS REALLY BUT HEY NEVER MIND
Why Not..Need to make this world a smoke free place for EVERYONES lungs sake.
No excuse if you get caught
With the new laws (England) that come into force on 1st July I'm afraid you do...
yes its a place of work
not if we work for a cigarette company.
im in ireland and my hubby smokes in the company car,hes not in a building and the window is down,though i do tll him to carry a tin of deodarant and spray now and again!
If you're the only employee who uses the vehicle, you can smoke in it.
I am asking every smoker to boycott pubs,clubs, football grounds etc for as long as it takes to make large companies and fat cats to go crying to Govt to modify law into common sense compromise.
Who is with me??
Answers:
YEP U DO BECAUSE IT IS CLASSED AS A PLACE OF WORK, SUCKS REALLY BUT HEY NEVER MIND
Why Not..Need to make this world a smoke free place for EVERYONES lungs sake.
No excuse if you get caught
With the new laws (England) that come into force on 1st July I'm afraid you do...
yes its a place of work
not if we work for a cigarette company.
im in ireland and my hubby smokes in the company car,hes not in a building and the window is down,though i do tll him to carry a tin of deodarant and spray now and again!
If you're the only employee who uses the vehicle, you can smoke in it.
I am asking every smoker to boycott pubs,clubs, football grounds etc for as long as it takes to make large companies and fat cats to go crying to Govt to modify law into common sense compromise.
Who is with me??
Do we people have to think whether it isnt safety for women to work in night shifts?
Answers:
Why would it be less safe for a woman than it is for a man?
Depends if your a hooker or not?
Back in 1981 I was supervising 27 Asian ladies doing night shift in a service station restaurant and they seemed quite happy
Why isn't it safe?
Hey ...watch it ...I work night shift and I love working night shift and yes.it's safe and it has been safe for the past 17 years.
Times are changing, changing fast, changing drastically: women are safe everywhere, at all times, these days, as they know how to look after themselves! Else, they won't be out there doing the shifts!
It's fine, I work graveyard. No problem for me... other than trying to stay awake!
Well, the politically correct answer would be that women can do anything that men can do. Excuse me while I control my laughter....... a woman chooses to work at night then that's her choice, but yes there is an increased danger for a woman working at night. After all, when is the last time you heard of a man being raped? It's ridiculous to say that women and men are the same. There are jobs that require physical strength that the MAJORITY of women just don't possess. The physical requirements of many jobs have been lowered so that women can pass them. If you are passed out in a building and a fire fighter comes up the stairs, do you want a 6 foot 2 inch man carrying you downstairs, or a 5 foot 5 inch woman that weighs about 120 pounds trying to throw you over her shoulder? There are many jobs that women are better qualified to handle than men, when did we decide that there are NO jobs that men can handle better than women?
It is bitter, but true, that still India doesn't achieved freedom as Mr. Gandhi told once, "when a women can travel alone in the night, that day India attain her real Independence".*
as present scenario...atmosphere for women very bad.but life is hard has to work to survive...so just woman can make sure that they be safe.
Its their problem, why do you worry.
Those who have fears may sleep back home and those who don't are welcome to join the gang
Change ur way of thinking with the world
50:50
Do we now just forget Kriss Donald or are there those with long memories?
This was an exceptionaly bad case, the worst I can think of in UK history in terms of cruelty. I am irked when many turn on you as if you are doing something wrong mentioning it. I think we have a duty not to forget.
Answers:
i wont forget, just like ill remember Tim Ap Rhys Price, Phillip Lawrence and many more who have been victims of racial violence from ethnic minority groups
dguhklzetyhxfh fh xfj xffgn vn chvgffdfg
It was sick, just like any murder carried out through the hatred of some one simply because of the colour their skin may be.
For once Pitman I have to agree. I recall this case of the poor lad and I was so shocked when I first heard about it .I believe it was 2004/5 that it happened.
Just highlights that crimes like these are not to be tolerated regardless of colour.Hatred hold no barrier and can effect anyone regardless of colour and religious beliefs.
Edit* Did I get the thumbs down from you pitman? Sorry piltdown man.
That was indeed horrific and absolutely abominoble - I sincerely hope all involved spent a long long time behind bars.
That the victim was white and his attackers Asian should not matter in terms of how the crime is perceived - ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who is a victim of such a brutal crime deserves remembering, whilst ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who commits such an offence equally deserves to have their liberty taken away.
Let's not use this death - or any other - as a political football; they are all tragedies and their attackers are all vile .
i won't forget that day.i was in that area when it happened so it truly frightens me that i was so near to somethng like this.
it was an appauling case of cruelty that should never ever be forgotten!
it was not seen as a racist murder at first which really appauled me because if kriss donald had been black it would be seen as racist
Answers:
i wont forget, just like ill remember Tim Ap Rhys Price, Phillip Lawrence and many more who have been victims of racial violence from ethnic minority groups
dguhklzetyhxfh fh xfj xffgn vn chvgffdfg
It was sick, just like any murder carried out through the hatred of some one simply because of the colour their skin may be.
For once Pitman I have to agree. I recall this case of the poor lad and I was so shocked when I first heard about it .I believe it was 2004/5 that it happened.
Just highlights that crimes like these are not to be tolerated regardless of colour.Hatred hold no barrier and can effect anyone regardless of colour and religious beliefs.
Edit* Did I get the thumbs down from you pitman? Sorry piltdown man.
That was indeed horrific and absolutely abominoble - I sincerely hope all involved spent a long long time behind bars.
That the victim was white and his attackers Asian should not matter in terms of how the crime is perceived - ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who is a victim of such a brutal crime deserves remembering, whilst ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who commits such an offence equally deserves to have their liberty taken away.
Let's not use this death - or any other - as a political football; they are all tragedies and their attackers are all vile .
i won't forget that day.i was in that area when it happened so it truly frightens me that i was so near to somethng like this.
it was an appauling case of cruelty that should never ever be forgotten!
it was not seen as a racist murder at first which really appauled me because if kriss donald had been black it would be seen as racist
Do we need better gun laws?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_o...
Answers:
More and more gun laws are not going to be respected or obeyed by criminals
No.
less guns
No. Gun control is being able to hit your target.
And when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
hell no. think about this genious .
when you ban guns do you think that the criminals are gonna give theirs up?
crime will really be bad then
Yes, we need better gun laws.
By 'better,' of course, I mean fewer and less restrictive laws...
No guns = No killings? U scare me, being that dim witted. Yes, we need better gun laws, such as concealed carry permits in all states, an longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Should we ban cars? More people die in car accidents annually than from guns, so why not? Because, like guns, cars dont kill people, certain people using and misusing them do. Keep guns availble to those who want them legally.
No, our gun laws are fine. Most of Europe has been turned into sheep, afraid of guns and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Not so in rural USA!
No guns = no killing?
So people stabbed, beaten, stomped, burned, smothered, and/or poisoned to death are not really dead because they weren't shot?
No. We need better laws that prohibit people with mental illnesses to purchase gun(s).
Yes.
While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun.
Every year, thousands of people die from gun injury, either accidental or intentional. Many of the well known cases in this country, from Columbine to Stockton to the latest at Virginia Tech, as well as various murders and crimes, involved guns that are inappropriately used. In the case of Virginia Tech, the very lax gun control law allowed the what-would-be mass murderer to obtain the weapons and ammos that he needed. Could he have gotten it other way? Sure. However, it would certainly be more troublesome for him to obtain the weapons he needed, and that may be the time difference to either get the help he needed or arrest him.
While it is true that hunters need guns, property owners with valuables need guns, professionals of law and order needed their own guns, and various other people needed guns, there is no need of selling gun to people like a college student with mental history. While right to bear arm and concealed arm deters some crime, having a huge number of the population owning weapons do not. That just allows those who are not properly trained or who are not stable mentally to use and abuse it.
Better gun control laws do not prohibit gun ownership by private citizens. They would allow a selection of better educated gun owners and a safer society.
yess !! more in big cities. like Toronto. also make more strong laws.also for people that are immgrants and commite serious crimes. to be deported and never entry to Canada again. is time to clean this society !!! also stop those that came from EEUU. and bring arms with them. we need a mayor secure bords.
Look at what the genius above me wrote...
"While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun."
Need? Screw you. I can't choose to have one? My right to bear arms is valid only if I have a reason you see fit.
Bue YES, we do need better gun laws. And by better, I'm talking like the majority of the crowd here. Better means streamlined, and LESS restrictions.
Yes - if you mean less restrictive gun laws
20,000 laws not enough?? Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So, by passing law 20,0001 is going to make the criminal think that they shouldn't break another law? It doesn't work.
Answers:
More and more gun laws are not going to be respected or obeyed by criminals
No.
less guns
No. Gun control is being able to hit your target.
And when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
hell no. think about this genious .
when you ban guns do you think that the criminals are gonna give theirs up?
crime will really be bad then
Yes, we need better gun laws.
By 'better,' of course, I mean fewer and less restrictive laws...
No guns = No killings? U scare me, being that dim witted. Yes, we need better gun laws, such as concealed carry permits in all states, an longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Should we ban cars? More people die in car accidents annually than from guns, so why not? Because, like guns, cars dont kill people, certain people using and misusing them do. Keep guns availble to those who want them legally.
No, our gun laws are fine. Most of Europe has been turned into sheep, afraid of guns and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Not so in rural USA!
No guns = no killing?
So people stabbed, beaten, stomped, burned, smothered, and/or poisoned to death are not really dead because they weren't shot?
No. We need better laws that prohibit people with mental illnesses to purchase gun(s).
Yes.
While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun.
Every year, thousands of people die from gun injury, either accidental or intentional. Many of the well known cases in this country, from Columbine to Stockton to the latest at Virginia Tech, as well as various murders and crimes, involved guns that are inappropriately used. In the case of Virginia Tech, the very lax gun control law allowed the what-would-be mass murderer to obtain the weapons and ammos that he needed. Could he have gotten it other way? Sure. However, it would certainly be more troublesome for him to obtain the weapons he needed, and that may be the time difference to either get the help he needed or arrest him.
While it is true that hunters need guns, property owners with valuables need guns, professionals of law and order needed their own guns, and various other people needed guns, there is no need of selling gun to people like a college student with mental history. While right to bear arm and concealed arm deters some crime, having a huge number of the population owning weapons do not. That just allows those who are not properly trained or who are not stable mentally to use and abuse it.
Better gun control laws do not prohibit gun ownership by private citizens. They would allow a selection of better educated gun owners and a safer society.
yess !! more in big cities. like Toronto. also make more strong laws.also for people that are immgrants and commite serious crimes. to be deported and never entry to Canada again. is time to clean this society !!! also stop those that came from EEUU. and bring arms with them. we need a mayor secure bords.
Look at what the genius above me wrote...
"While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun."
Need? Screw you. I can't choose to have one? My right to bear arms is valid only if I have a reason you see fit.
Bue YES, we do need better gun laws. And by better, I'm talking like the majority of the crowd here. Better means streamlined, and LESS restrictions.
Yes - if you mean less restrictive gun laws
20,000 laws not enough?? Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So, by passing law 20,0001 is going to make the criminal think that they shouldn't break another law? It doesn't work.
Do we morally have the right to turn our backs on undocumented immigrants?
I recently read an answer where someone used the Bible as a basis for why undocumented aliens should not be allowed here, stating that they are sinning by breaking our immigration laws. It seems to me, if we use the Bible in this debate, then we must look at the story of the Good Samaritan. We also must remember that Jesus was a sojourner in many places where he was legally not to be. He told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "what you do to the least of them you do to me". He didn't tell us to love our neighbors from a distance or only if they are in the same socio-economic level.
And as for building walls, look at what happened in Jericho and Babel!
We are all God's children. We share many faiths, colors, and cultures, but ultimately we are of one family. So again I ask, how can we turn our backs on the least of us?
Answers:
No, we don't.
I read the title of your question and every point you make went instantly through my head before I read the extra stuff! So I agree with you - good samaritan, etc.
As for them being sinners because of breaking our laws, Christ wasn't exactly known for his condemnation of "sinners" was he! Look at the Magdalene, and the man on the cross beside him, etc.
Compassion is where I get off every time. And as for using the bible as an argument (for anything, really!), Christianity's stance on anything should only ever boil down to Christ-like behaviour.
"What would Jesus do" should be the deciding factor!
By "undocumented immigrants" I'm sure you mean illegal aliens. Criminals.
No we MUST NOT turn our back on them. We have to find each and every one of them and force them to leave the country forever.
We need to pass laws that puts ANYONE who hires an ILLEGAL alien in prison on the first offence and no possibility of parole. Five years for each illegal hired would be deserving. We need to expand the law to imprison anyone who admits an illegal into a school, or a hospital. We need to pay a reward to whistleblowers who turn those people in. Then we need to build a BIG wall on the southern border and charge illegals $5000 just for the privilege of LEAVING the country.
I don't understand about this entire thing with supporting illegal immigrants ? who really cares? Illegal immigrants aren't doing anything but using U S taxpayer money to support them and offering cheap labor in return..
Come into the country legally and pay your taxes and you will live the American dream .
That is all very good but you should face the facts. The illegals are helping to eliminate the middle class by accepting jobs at low wages. They are draining our heath care system, the schools, and many are criminals. Is is wonderful to be altruistic but the reality is that they are hurting every aspect of this country and making life harder for poor Americans. Let's take care of our own first before we worry about those that committed a crime to get in the U.S.
While I appreciate your position, here's the difference: the man who had been beaten and robbed on the road didn't break into the Good Samaritan's house and make him help him.
We should be helping these people improve their conditions in Mexico, but they shouldn't steal from us. Using this logic, we should tell all the HIV-positive Africans to come invade our country as well.
Forcing me to pay higher taxes to help these criminals isn't Christian. No one has ever felt the hand of Christ through a government program.
As Christians, we should voluntarily help these people improve their lives and know Jesus, in their homelands.
Yes, Not everyone in the USA is religious and fallows the bible. ILLEGAL immigrants broke the LAW.
Not everyone believes in your god. Stop pushing it down everyone's throats.
Ok, as a minister I have an obligation to respond to this. We are a nation of laws and we are a people of laws. We are obliged to follow the laws that are set up by the government because God is the one who raises up and tears down governments. Now with regard to illegal immigration, we have 12 million plus people who do not follow our laws, they came here because they did not want to wait, they also broke in and now demand services because they broke the law that we set up. That is tantamount to someone breaking into your house and telling you that your responsible to feed them. It does not come down to love, it comes down to personal responsibility, if you want to come here then you need to do it legally just like everyone else.
Easy. Its not our job to support people who scoff at the law. The numbers don't lie. Illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources, and threaten the very existence of the country as our forefathers envisioned.
How can you justify someone sneaking into this country, and then getting all angry when we try to stop it from happening?
If you want to wave you Mexican flag, stay in Mexico.
If you want to be an American, there is a process through which you may do so. We simply cannot allow unfettered access to this country and its resources any longer. It is not a religous debate, but a debate for the well being of our country and future generations.
The welcome mat should be out for those who truly desire to work hard, and better themselves, and blend into the American society. The door should be slammed shut, however on those who are looking for a free ride.
I'll tell you how...When we can't put a good meal in front of our children at night because our jobs are being taken by illegals who will work for next to nothing. When our neighborhoods that we paid good money to put our families in are being turned into trash because of the way they choose to live in filth. When the schools make our children hold back so that they can focus their attention on the kids who do not know English. When LEGAL AMERICAN women who honestly need it, can't get governmental financial help to clothe her kids and give them what they need because the ILLEGAL spanish overflow our social services departments to take what is there.
I am all for "The Melting Pot" and mixing characters in our country...but if they can't do it legally and honestly, they need to get the hell out.
Because the government doesn't go by the bible it goes by the laws that have already been written. The law says you can't stay in the U.S. unless you are a citizen and that citizenship has to be earned if you are an immigrant. Those "undocumented immigrants" are not citizens therefor they are here illegally and most have not bothered to TRY to earn their citizenship.
absolutely not!! i have not studied the bible, but , having a christian upbringing, i seem to recall a particular beatitude saying "blessed are you who show mercy" i think we need to cosider this. whether or not coming here was the morally right decision, we have responsibility to these people. some are risking their lives to come here, instead of condemning them for trying to make their lives better,shouldnt we be welcoming them?? and to the people who disagree,all i have to say is this:we should be helping them in their own countries, so they have other options of escaping a life of poverty or discrimination
there has to be a compromise. they aren't coming here to hurt citizens and many pay taxes.
if you pay taxes, don't break any of out laws (except for being here), and learn english you deserve amnesty.
a joke for catholics:
god gave the souls of dead babies amnesty out of purgatory, why can't you give the illegals some amnesty too?
There are such things as laws of the land as well. When
we start enforcing the laws and fining the abetting factories,
we'll be on the road to getting this mess straightened out.
There's nothing saying we can't make provisions within the
system for migrant workers -- in tthat case the employer
would pay no less than minimum rate and any other
cost that a legit employer pays. NO amnesty.
And as for building walls, look at what happened in Jericho and Babel!
We are all God's children. We share many faiths, colors, and cultures, but ultimately we are of one family. So again I ask, how can we turn our backs on the least of us?
Answers:
No, we don't.
I read the title of your question and every point you make went instantly through my head before I read the extra stuff! So I agree with you - good samaritan, etc.
As for them being sinners because of breaking our laws, Christ wasn't exactly known for his condemnation of "sinners" was he! Look at the Magdalene, and the man on the cross beside him, etc.
Compassion is where I get off every time. And as for using the bible as an argument (for anything, really!), Christianity's stance on anything should only ever boil down to Christ-like behaviour.
"What would Jesus do" should be the deciding factor!
By "undocumented immigrants" I'm sure you mean illegal aliens. Criminals.
No we MUST NOT turn our back on them. We have to find each and every one of them and force them to leave the country forever.
We need to pass laws that puts ANYONE who hires an ILLEGAL alien in prison on the first offence and no possibility of parole. Five years for each illegal hired would be deserving. We need to expand the law to imprison anyone who admits an illegal into a school, or a hospital. We need to pay a reward to whistleblowers who turn those people in. Then we need to build a BIG wall on the southern border and charge illegals $5000 just for the privilege of LEAVING the country.
I don't understand about this entire thing with supporting illegal immigrants ? who really cares? Illegal immigrants aren't doing anything but using U S taxpayer money to support them and offering cheap labor in return..
Come into the country legally and pay your taxes and you will live the American dream .
That is all very good but you should face the facts. The illegals are helping to eliminate the middle class by accepting jobs at low wages. They are draining our heath care system, the schools, and many are criminals. Is is wonderful to be altruistic but the reality is that they are hurting every aspect of this country and making life harder for poor Americans. Let's take care of our own first before we worry about those that committed a crime to get in the U.S.
While I appreciate your position, here's the difference: the man who had been beaten and robbed on the road didn't break into the Good Samaritan's house and make him help him.
We should be helping these people improve their conditions in Mexico, but they shouldn't steal from us. Using this logic, we should tell all the HIV-positive Africans to come invade our country as well.
Forcing me to pay higher taxes to help these criminals isn't Christian. No one has ever felt the hand of Christ through a government program.
As Christians, we should voluntarily help these people improve their lives and know Jesus, in their homelands.
Yes, Not everyone in the USA is religious and fallows the bible. ILLEGAL immigrants broke the LAW.
Not everyone believes in your god. Stop pushing it down everyone's throats.
Ok, as a minister I have an obligation to respond to this. We are a nation of laws and we are a people of laws. We are obliged to follow the laws that are set up by the government because God is the one who raises up and tears down governments. Now with regard to illegal immigration, we have 12 million plus people who do not follow our laws, they came here because they did not want to wait, they also broke in and now demand services because they broke the law that we set up. That is tantamount to someone breaking into your house and telling you that your responsible to feed them. It does not come down to love, it comes down to personal responsibility, if you want to come here then you need to do it legally just like everyone else.
Easy. Its not our job to support people who scoff at the law. The numbers don't lie. Illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources, and threaten the very existence of the country as our forefathers envisioned.
How can you justify someone sneaking into this country, and then getting all angry when we try to stop it from happening?
If you want to wave you Mexican flag, stay in Mexico.
If you want to be an American, there is a process through which you may do so. We simply cannot allow unfettered access to this country and its resources any longer. It is not a religous debate, but a debate for the well being of our country and future generations.
The welcome mat should be out for those who truly desire to work hard, and better themselves, and blend into the American society. The door should be slammed shut, however on those who are looking for a free ride.
I'll tell you how...When we can't put a good meal in front of our children at night because our jobs are being taken by illegals who will work for next to nothing. When our neighborhoods that we paid good money to put our families in are being turned into trash because of the way they choose to live in filth. When the schools make our children hold back so that they can focus their attention on the kids who do not know English. When LEGAL AMERICAN women who honestly need it, can't get governmental financial help to clothe her kids and give them what they need because the ILLEGAL spanish overflow our social services departments to take what is there.
I am all for "The Melting Pot" and mixing characters in our country...but if they can't do it legally and honestly, they need to get the hell out.
Because the government doesn't go by the bible it goes by the laws that have already been written. The law says you can't stay in the U.S. unless you are a citizen and that citizenship has to be earned if you are an immigrant. Those "undocumented immigrants" are not citizens therefor they are here illegally and most have not bothered to TRY to earn their citizenship.
absolutely not!! i have not studied the bible, but , having a christian upbringing, i seem to recall a particular beatitude saying "blessed are you who show mercy" i think we need to cosider this. whether or not coming here was the morally right decision, we have responsibility to these people. some are risking their lives to come here, instead of condemning them for trying to make their lives better,shouldnt we be welcoming them?? and to the people who disagree,all i have to say is this:we should be helping them in their own countries, so they have other options of escaping a life of poverty or discrimination
there has to be a compromise. they aren't coming here to hurt citizens and many pay taxes.
if you pay taxes, don't break any of out laws (except for being here), and learn english you deserve amnesty.
a joke for catholics:
god gave the souls of dead babies amnesty out of purgatory, why can't you give the illegals some amnesty too?
There are such things as laws of the land as well. When
we start enforcing the laws and fining the abetting factories,
we'll be on the road to getting this mess straightened out.
There's nothing saying we can't make provisions within the
system for migrant workers -- in tthat case the employer
would pay no less than minimum rate and any other
cost that a legit employer pays. NO amnesty.
Do we legally have to pay income taxes?
I recently watched a movie called freedom to facism, this movie claims that "legally" we do not have to pay taxes. I know about the 16th amendment but that does not apply to people earning a regular wage. What do you guys think? I would like to know where it specifically states we have to pay income taxes.
Answers:
only two sure things in life. death and taxes
i once watched a movie where a man could put on a cape and fly. guess what? didn't work for me!!
dont pay your taxes and find out. it wont be fun.
duh
Check out the Internal Revenue Code.
OH YAEHHHHHH ! ! !
Great documentary. every american needs to watch that!
yes
16th amendment??
Yes.
And, clearly, you don't know about the 16th Amendment. Here it is:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Using the scientific model, you be the test subject. You buy stuff at a store and refuse to pay the STATE tax, then work all year, and then don't pay your Federal tax. Report back to see if anyone notices.
My guess is that if there wasn't a law to pay taxes, a lot more people wouldn't.
hahaha. try that with the government. yes you have to pay taxes.
There are not specifically stated taxes or taxation rates in documents like The Bill of Rights or the US Constitution... but the federal government reserves the right to tax wages to provide services to the public. The federal, state, and local governments all reserve the right to tax wages earned to provide for education, infrastructure, social services, etc. The current rate of income taxation falls around 22% of your wages when you factor in all the state, federal and local taxes you pay (give or take depending on area of course).
Did you know that during the cold war, income taxes were somewhere around 70% of your wages? The federal government can raise or lower tax rates as it sees fit... and if you don't believe that... don't pay them! If you want to be arrested for tax evasion and pay even more money, that is your choice!
To my knowledge, the only people exempt from income tax are those on wellfare or collecting social security, and the president of the united states. Obviously those are not taxed, because Welfare and Social Security are government money... and that would be kind of stupid for the government to tax themselves. The President of the US does not have to pay income tax because i mean... come on, rookie NFL players who sit the bench make more money than the Prez... doesn't the dude deserve some kind of a perk?
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO TAX! The 16th Amendment says it clear as day... and beyond that its in one of the millions of adendums and bills that are passed daily about how taxation works. Taxation is not against the constitution... and without it you would be living in a third world country in a little hut and catching your food with a wooden spear. This is a stupid arguement!
Bullshit it doesnt go toward services... 40% of all tax revenue by the FED goes to education. Why dont you take an ECONOMICS class?
The Libertarian Argument has been made and even executed on a number of occasions by a number of brave souls. Unfortunately, time and time again, the argument is not upheld by the courts.
See the provided source.
even if we didn't, i wouldn't mess with the IRS. those guys will come take your home, car, land, pets, whatever, and laugh while they do it.
Hmmm..have you been to that nice public library lately or taken a long drive on that freeway that just added a few more lanes to each side? Hey, isn't it wonderful that the local high school built a new gym and thank God for the free clinic where Maggie was able to get treatment for her sudden illness. Good thing, because Maggie's parents are in hard times now and another bill would have just put them over the edge. And what about the wonderful state and national parks, they sure are a treasure.
Just some examples here and there are infinate examples similar to what I have highlighted here. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE FUNDS COME FROM TO MAINTAIN THESE THINGS??
Oh, did I hear you say "taxes?"
Additional Comment to your additional comment:
Can you provide a source that states that ALL of our income taxes go to paying interest on the National Debt? I want to see it.
I'm originally from Missouri and you have to SHOW ME!
And besides, the general term of taxes was used here. I would think that would include ALL taxes whether it be Federal, State, County, City or even Sales tax.
You need to re-read the 16th amendment. Then check the IRS laws.
Then go for a year without paying taxes and see what happens. If you have the patience, read through the website shown below.
TITLE 26 %26gt; Subtitle A %26gt; CHAPTER 1 %26gt; Subchapter A %26gt; PART I %26gt; 搂
搂 1. Tax imposed
The 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The movie is wrong. Plenty of people have argued its claims before the courts and lost. Remember, the 16th Amendment was passed AFTER the Supreme Court initially struck down the first attempt at an income tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes the government to collect taxes on income. Income includes wages, interest, investments, rental payments, etc.
The specidic statutes passed by Congress are found in Title 26 of the United States Code.
Answers:
only two sure things in life. death and taxes
i once watched a movie where a man could put on a cape and fly. guess what? didn't work for me!!
dont pay your taxes and find out. it wont be fun.
duh
Check out the Internal Revenue Code.
OH YAEHHHHHH ! ! !
Great documentary. every american needs to watch that!
yes
16th amendment??
Yes.
And, clearly, you don't know about the 16th Amendment. Here it is:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Using the scientific model, you be the test subject. You buy stuff at a store and refuse to pay the STATE tax, then work all year, and then don't pay your Federal tax. Report back to see if anyone notices.
My guess is that if there wasn't a law to pay taxes, a lot more people wouldn't.
hahaha. try that with the government. yes you have to pay taxes.
There are not specifically stated taxes or taxation rates in documents like The Bill of Rights or the US Constitution... but the federal government reserves the right to tax wages to provide services to the public. The federal, state, and local governments all reserve the right to tax wages earned to provide for education, infrastructure, social services, etc. The current rate of income taxation falls around 22% of your wages when you factor in all the state, federal and local taxes you pay (give or take depending on area of course).
Did you know that during the cold war, income taxes were somewhere around 70% of your wages? The federal government can raise or lower tax rates as it sees fit... and if you don't believe that... don't pay them! If you want to be arrested for tax evasion and pay even more money, that is your choice!
To my knowledge, the only people exempt from income tax are those on wellfare or collecting social security, and the president of the united states. Obviously those are not taxed, because Welfare and Social Security are government money... and that would be kind of stupid for the government to tax themselves. The President of the US does not have to pay income tax because i mean... come on, rookie NFL players who sit the bench make more money than the Prez... doesn't the dude deserve some kind of a perk?
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO TAX! The 16th Amendment says it clear as day... and beyond that its in one of the millions of adendums and bills that are passed daily about how taxation works. Taxation is not against the constitution... and without it you would be living in a third world country in a little hut and catching your food with a wooden spear. This is a stupid arguement!
Bullshit it doesnt go toward services... 40% of all tax revenue by the FED goes to education. Why dont you take an ECONOMICS class?
The Libertarian Argument has been made and even executed on a number of occasions by a number of brave souls. Unfortunately, time and time again, the argument is not upheld by the courts.
See the provided source.
even if we didn't, i wouldn't mess with the IRS. those guys will come take your home, car, land, pets, whatever, and laugh while they do it.
Hmmm..have you been to that nice public library lately or taken a long drive on that freeway that just added a few more lanes to each side? Hey, isn't it wonderful that the local high school built a new gym and thank God for the free clinic where Maggie was able to get treatment for her sudden illness. Good thing, because Maggie's parents are in hard times now and another bill would have just put them over the edge. And what about the wonderful state and national parks, they sure are a treasure.
Just some examples here and there are infinate examples similar to what I have highlighted here. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE FUNDS COME FROM TO MAINTAIN THESE THINGS??
Oh, did I hear you say "taxes?"
Additional Comment to your additional comment:
Can you provide a source that states that ALL of our income taxes go to paying interest on the National Debt? I want to see it.
I'm originally from Missouri and you have to SHOW ME!
And besides, the general term of taxes was used here. I would think that would include ALL taxes whether it be Federal, State, County, City or even Sales tax.
You need to re-read the 16th amendment. Then check the IRS laws.
Then go for a year without paying taxes and see what happens. If you have the patience, read through the website shown below.
TITLE 26 %26gt; Subtitle A %26gt; CHAPTER 1 %26gt; Subchapter A %26gt; PART I %26gt; 搂
搂 1. Tax imposed
The 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The movie is wrong. Plenty of people have argued its claims before the courts and lost. Remember, the 16th Amendment was passed AFTER the Supreme Court initially struck down the first attempt at an income tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes the government to collect taxes on income. Income includes wages, interest, investments, rental payments, etc.
The specidic statutes passed by Congress are found in Title 26 of the United States Code.
Do we have to take candy machine out of city hall because of blind people. I live in tn.?
we use the candy machine to pay for our water cooler. now we are told that because of federal law we are going to have to remove it because its not blind people friendly. I've worked here for 22 years and do not recall seeing a blind person in the section of the building where the machine is. thanks
Answers:
uh i feel bad for a blind person but come on can't they ask someone for a snickers.
no you dont have to remove it just make the numbers that are pressed on the machine to get the candy out blind pwople friendly by putting the bumpy letters on them that they can read. thats all you have to do
No. The Americans with Disibilities Act does not require the removal of the machine.
could you trade it in for a model that is blind-friendly? I think in buildings (especially government ones) that is has to be handicap happy. The candy machine seems a little excessive, though. how can they miss something they could never really do? then again, i am thankfully not blind.
isn't bureaucracy wonderful? i bet the mayor has a friend who owns a vending machine company, get a newer fancy model in there asap.
Hire an illegal alien to stand there and explain it for the blind person. Though you may have to hire a translator too, but you'll still have cool water.
I think it's just a lame way to get so called unhealthy food out of the building. Having a Candy Machine in any hallway would NOT Bother a Blind person. They Can Not See It. And 2nd they either have a seeing eye dog or a cane to guide them along.
This is just another example of politial correctness gone amuck. Put it in a spot where a blind person would never find it anyway.
Answers:
uh i feel bad for a blind person but come on can't they ask someone for a snickers.
no you dont have to remove it just make the numbers that are pressed on the machine to get the candy out blind pwople friendly by putting the bumpy letters on them that they can read. thats all you have to do
No. The Americans with Disibilities Act does not require the removal of the machine.
could you trade it in for a model that is blind-friendly? I think in buildings (especially government ones) that is has to be handicap happy. The candy machine seems a little excessive, though. how can they miss something they could never really do? then again, i am thankfully not blind.
isn't bureaucracy wonderful? i bet the mayor has a friend who owns a vending machine company, get a newer fancy model in there asap.
Hire an illegal alien to stand there and explain it for the blind person. Though you may have to hire a translator too, but you'll still have cool water.
I think it's just a lame way to get so called unhealthy food out of the building. Having a Candy Machine in any hallway would NOT Bother a Blind person. They Can Not See It. And 2nd they either have a seeing eye dog or a cane to guide them along.
This is just another example of politial correctness gone amuck. Put it in a spot where a blind person would never find it anyway.
Do we have to keep paying child support past 18 yrs old?
My stepson turned 18 in March. He did not finish high school, he is taking night classes to get his diploma, (or so we are told) He works under the table during the day and still lives with his mother. Child support was never court ordered, we just pay each week, do we have to keep paying now that he is 18? They will be moving out of state in about a month. We live in Massachusetts. Thank you
Answers:
NO!
No.
If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.
i am pretty sure you don't have to sense he is legally an adult now and should be supporting himself. if you want to give him cash to help him out, that's up to you. but you can't go to jail or anything now.
Once he is 18 he is an adult and therefore he no longer is entitled to child support.
No. Child support is only there is a child!
**Though you may want to still help your child complete his educational goals.
as long as its not court ordered then no... you didnt even have to pay from day 1
it depends on how much back support is owed
No you do not have to pay current support past the age of 18, unless it is court ordered, the child is attending school full time, or you have back support due. If you owe support from previous years then you must continue paying until the back support is paid off. If you are current then you should be done.
If he is not a full time student then it should not be nessessary. If it was not court ordered then for sure there will be no problem.
If it's not court ordered - you never had to pay "technically" though ethically you did.
However - the kid's 18 and old enough to get his crap together and start standing on his own two feet.
Sounds like the parent that was taking care of him wasn't keeping much discipline on the child - which led to him not finishing school properly.
without a court order, you never had to pay it at all. If the court had ordered it, the court could have had it end at 18 or later depending on circumstances.
If he is now 18, is not disabled, and can't prove that he is still enrolled in classes (regular high school clases, whether day or night, not GED), then no. He is now an adult.
%26lt;%26lt;If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.%26gt;%26gt;
This poster is incorrect. It is only through HIGH SCHOOL unless disabled. Some individual states include college, but that is not widespread (nor should be) and typically determined on a case to case basis.
Great job, BTW, to have continued to support the child all this time without a court order. It's a shame more people don't get along to be able to determine themselves what is best. What I would recommend though, is if he is indeed going to night classes, to cover him at least through what would have been his graduation in June since the law usually states 18 or finished high school. Some kids just don't do well in the day school environment and just getting them finished is a good thing!
My mom received child support for me until I was 19, but I had to be in some sort of schooling. So to tell you the truth Im not sure since its not court ordered and you reside in MA, im in CA.
First off, you need to ask a lawyer this question. Don't forget that using the defense of "...but they told me on FreeLawAnswer.com ..." won't look too good in front of a judge.
It's hard to believe that child support was never ordered, especially in an ultra-liberal state like Massachusetts.
Having said all that, however...if it were me, I wouldn't pay child support once the boy turned 18 if he'd already dropped out of public school.
If the child continues school after 18, yes until they finish their education.
if he is not a full time student and child support was not court ordered,and he is working then ,maybe you should reduce his payments.i would check into the laws where you are at.
You are not responsible for child support after the age of 18 unless there is a court order that says so. You didn't even HAVE to pay it before the age of 18 unless it was court ordered. But its nice that he did pay it.
no definetly not but you should help your son if you have the money
Hey Parent,
No, your done with the payments. No matter if the kid is done with school or not, your responsibilities are satisfied as far as the legal aspect goes. If you want to help the mother out if the child still lives at home, that's on you. Good Luck, your free
If child support was never court ordered, you never "had" to pay it in the first place. You certainly do not have to continue now the the boy is an adult.
Was never court ordered? WTF?
Depending on the state, and I don't know about MA, you may have to pay until he finishes college, even if that's at age 25! None of my kids finished at 22 like most kids do.
I live in Maryland, but our state law is that as long as a child is in school the non-custodial parent must pay support until the age of the child's 19th birthday. Just look up the child support laws in your state it should tell you.
First of all you had better read this well.
If the child support is not COURT ORDERED you spouse is a damn fool.
Now, if you're still reading, here is why. the ex can go back to court and file now and at a minimum, if your husband can't prove each and every payment, the court can order support for the last 18 years then the court can order retroactive child support beginning at birth.
The state of Massachusetts allows for interest to be charged on late child support payments, retroactive support, and adjudicated arrears at a rate of 12% annually. Depending upon payments received, obligors might not be assessed interest or might be eligible to apply for a waiver under certain circumstances. (M.G.L. c.119A, s6(a) 830 CMR s119A.6.1)
I would suggest you ask the mother for proof that the child is attending school and agree to pay the support until a date when he is supposed to graduate or does graduate or no longer than his 19th birthday.
In the agreement, the mother is to sign an affidavit of completion stipulating that child support has been paid regularly by the non-custodial parent and will be completed on the date agreed.
This is why it is NEVER a good idea to do a 'self-help' solution.
No, I don't think you do.
Answers:
NO!
No.
If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.
i am pretty sure you don't have to sense he is legally an adult now and should be supporting himself. if you want to give him cash to help him out, that's up to you. but you can't go to jail or anything now.
Once he is 18 he is an adult and therefore he no longer is entitled to child support.
No. Child support is only there is a child!
**Though you may want to still help your child complete his educational goals.
as long as its not court ordered then no... you didnt even have to pay from day 1
it depends on how much back support is owed
No you do not have to pay current support past the age of 18, unless it is court ordered, the child is attending school full time, or you have back support due. If you owe support from previous years then you must continue paying until the back support is paid off. If you are current then you should be done.
If he is not a full time student then it should not be nessessary. If it was not court ordered then for sure there will be no problem.
If it's not court ordered - you never had to pay "technically" though ethically you did.
However - the kid's 18 and old enough to get his crap together and start standing on his own two feet.
Sounds like the parent that was taking care of him wasn't keeping much discipline on the child - which led to him not finishing school properly.
without a court order, you never had to pay it at all. If the court had ordered it, the court could have had it end at 18 or later depending on circumstances.
If he is now 18, is not disabled, and can't prove that he is still enrolled in classes (regular high school clases, whether day or night, not GED), then no. He is now an adult.
%26lt;%26lt;If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.%26gt;%26gt;
This poster is incorrect. It is only through HIGH SCHOOL unless disabled. Some individual states include college, but that is not widespread (nor should be) and typically determined on a case to case basis.
Great job, BTW, to have continued to support the child all this time without a court order. It's a shame more people don't get along to be able to determine themselves what is best. What I would recommend though, is if he is indeed going to night classes, to cover him at least through what would have been his graduation in June since the law usually states 18 or finished high school. Some kids just don't do well in the day school environment and just getting them finished is a good thing!
My mom received child support for me until I was 19, but I had to be in some sort of schooling. So to tell you the truth Im not sure since its not court ordered and you reside in MA, im in CA.
First off, you need to ask a lawyer this question. Don't forget that using the defense of "...but they told me on FreeLawAnswer.com ..." won't look too good in front of a judge.
It's hard to believe that child support was never ordered, especially in an ultra-liberal state like Massachusetts.
Having said all that, however...if it were me, I wouldn't pay child support once the boy turned 18 if he'd already dropped out of public school.
If the child continues school after 18, yes until they finish their education.
if he is not a full time student and child support was not court ordered,and he is working then ,maybe you should reduce his payments.i would check into the laws where you are at.
You are not responsible for child support after the age of 18 unless there is a court order that says so. You didn't even HAVE to pay it before the age of 18 unless it was court ordered. But its nice that he did pay it.
no definetly not but you should help your son if you have the money
Hey Parent,
No, your done with the payments. No matter if the kid is done with school or not, your responsibilities are satisfied as far as the legal aspect goes. If you want to help the mother out if the child still lives at home, that's on you. Good Luck, your free
If child support was never court ordered, you never "had" to pay it in the first place. You certainly do not have to continue now the the boy is an adult.
Was never court ordered? WTF?
Depending on the state, and I don't know about MA, you may have to pay until he finishes college, even if that's at age 25! None of my kids finished at 22 like most kids do.
I live in Maryland, but our state law is that as long as a child is in school the non-custodial parent must pay support until the age of the child's 19th birthday. Just look up the child support laws in your state it should tell you.
First of all you had better read this well.
If the child support is not COURT ORDERED you spouse is a damn fool.
Now, if you're still reading, here is why. the ex can go back to court and file now and at a minimum, if your husband can't prove each and every payment, the court can order support for the last 18 years then the court can order retroactive child support beginning at birth.
The state of Massachusetts allows for interest to be charged on late child support payments, retroactive support, and adjudicated arrears at a rate of 12% annually. Depending upon payments received, obligors might not be assessed interest or might be eligible to apply for a waiver under certain circumstances. (M.G.L. c.119A, s6(a) 830 CMR s119A.6.1)
I would suggest you ask the mother for proof that the child is attending school and agree to pay the support until a date when he is supposed to graduate or does graduate or no longer than his 19th birthday.
In the agreement, the mother is to sign an affidavit of completion stipulating that child support has been paid regularly by the non-custodial parent and will be completed on the date agreed.
This is why it is NEVER a good idea to do a 'self-help' solution.
No, I don't think you do.
Do we get rights?
My brother's kids were taken from him by the mother, who says that we can never see them again. My brother doesn't seem as concerned as the rest of my family that loves the kids very deeply. Can an Aunt get visitation rights? What about a Grandmother?
Answers:
This would be tough to do through the legal system. I heard of a group that is working for visitation rights for non-parental family, but I don't think you have any rights yet.
I think the best way to see them again would be to talk to the mother. Also, unless she gets a restraining order, there is nothing stopping you from going to her neighborhood and visiting the kids while they are playing outside. But having them at grandma's for the holidays will be tough, unless you can convince the mother to let them.
yes anyone can with a person from child services being with you
Sorry, I really don't think so, and the only potential way it to pay big bucks for a lawyer.
Im not sure about you as an aunt, but as a grandparent, most states have Grandparents Rights. Have her contact a family attorney.
No one other than the father has legal standing to petition the court for visitation unless joined in the petition by the father.
It would be different if the father was deceased or if the other family member could show a Psychological parentage link but since you didn't address that issue, the only thing I can advise you on is depending on the age of the child and the history of a relationship with the other relatives, it would be very difficult if not impossible to petition the court in such a matter.
The rights will vary from state to state, and you may have to sue to get visitation. Unfortunately, only a lawyer can tell you the chances of actually winning.
My son was in a custody situation such as yours. He lives in Florida and his daughter was in California. He came to California to challenge the courts for custody of his daughter. After two court appearances he won custody of his daugher. This is almost unheard of in California (an out-of-state father gaining custody of a minor child) He used the following free website for assistance in preparing his argument: http://www.childcustody.net/page2.html...
The lawyer here at this site tries to answer questions for all states and will research any questions you have. My son did not have a lawyer...he fought this using information from the above site. Good Luck.
I just want to add the courts in most states try to have visits for the kids with both sides of the family. It takes a court decision to deny the family the right to visit with the children.
Answers:
This would be tough to do through the legal system. I heard of a group that is working for visitation rights for non-parental family, but I don't think you have any rights yet.
I think the best way to see them again would be to talk to the mother. Also, unless she gets a restraining order, there is nothing stopping you from going to her neighborhood and visiting the kids while they are playing outside. But having them at grandma's for the holidays will be tough, unless you can convince the mother to let them.
yes anyone can with a person from child services being with you
Sorry, I really don't think so, and the only potential way it to pay big bucks for a lawyer.
Im not sure about you as an aunt, but as a grandparent, most states have Grandparents Rights. Have her contact a family attorney.
No one other than the father has legal standing to petition the court for visitation unless joined in the petition by the father.
It would be different if the father was deceased or if the other family member could show a Psychological parentage link but since you didn't address that issue, the only thing I can advise you on is depending on the age of the child and the history of a relationship with the other relatives, it would be very difficult if not impossible to petition the court in such a matter.
The rights will vary from state to state, and you may have to sue to get visitation. Unfortunately, only a lawyer can tell you the chances of actually winning.
My son was in a custody situation such as yours. He lives in Florida and his daughter was in California. He came to California to challenge the courts for custody of his daughter. After two court appearances he won custody of his daugher. This is almost unheard of in California (an out-of-state father gaining custody of a minor child) He used the following free website for assistance in preparing his argument: http://www.childcustody.net/page2.html...
The lawyer here at this site tries to answer questions for all states and will research any questions you have. My son did not have a lawyer...he fought this using information from the above site. Good Luck.
I just want to add the courts in most states try to have visits for the kids with both sides of the family. It takes a court decision to deny the family the right to visit with the children.
Do we do enough to protect our innocent children?
Answers:
I have just watched something on TV about children and the tight hold upon them by their parents. Parents fear allowing their children to go out on their own.
Frankly I am astounded at the restrictions placed upon children today, what with being driven to school and all.
In my childhood in the 1940s children roamed freely, sometimes miles away from home and were quite safe. On Saturdays I used to go out with school mates and not return home until early evening. I'm talking when I was five or six years old.
By the time I got to 14 I was expected to have chosen a career and by 15 left school and gone away from home. I did exactly that and joined the British Army aged 15 in 1957.
If you so much as glance at a child today you are thought to be some kind of pervert.
The world [UK anyway] has gone mad. If a person is not free as a child, that person will never be free.
I do with my own children - but I can't speak for the majority
No I do not think so, protection of our children also means giving us the leeway to discipline our kids how we see fit, taking away their playstation isnt discipline, they would simple laugh at us behind out backs. With what our kids can be exposed to in school on the bus, even at a friends house we cant protect them from that,.
This is an age old question.
The short answer is no.
Laws do not protect children. Parents do.
Focus on being the best parent you can be. Don't let work or life in general get in your way.
If you can't be a good parent, then don't have children.
Most importantly, don't teach your children fear or suspicion. They will grow up with nothing but both as core values.
It's just that simple.
Tha can be an idividualized issue. It kind of is the childs responsibility to be strong willed and protect themselves mentally from other people. Physically, they will gain confidence through sports.
Modern society, in the US and UK any way, do way too much. Dred is correct. Kids should be running loose in the street after school and if they don't come home by dinner then they should get a spanking.
No, and while they are treat as property instead of as individual people, with the same rights as adults, they will always be second class citizens with second class rights.
In short no. I'd rather have cops trailing kids to school instead of writing traffic tickets; I'd rather have vice divisions redirected to investigating and prosecuting child porn cases, I'd like to see life sentences for child pornographers, child rapists, and anyone selling dope to a minor. Once I had my son, my views changed dramatically to mostly intolerant of any actions that are contrary to raising respectful, disciplined and protected children. Even the public schools don't offer enough protection for our kids while they have them in their care. And contrary to some other opinions posted here, I can't teach my son "protection" through ideals. Protection is an external entity that is typically provided to you by someone or something else. Police, a fence, guard dog, neighborhood watch, laws, etc. All I can teach my son is to be aware, avoid dangerous situations and people, and perhaps some self defense.
The vast majority of children do not need protecting because they are not in danger! There is no molester on the street corner, there is noting wrong with falling from a tree, or rough housing with friends. Children are now protected too much and we risk raising a generation of babies
In some ways, no. When my children were very young, I was shocked to see a woman appearing on a TV programme aimed at the under fives talking about family relationships. She was somebody's wife, somebody else's mum and.wait for it! somebody else's mistress! From their earliest years children are having information thrown at them which it is very hard to cope with. There is no way in which a parent can explain such a relationship to an innocent child without entering into realms which would destroy the child's innocence. At the same time, children are cossetted, discouraged from enjoying what I look back on as the freedom of childhood to explore the world around and protected from the most extraordinary things which from time immemorial children have been able to take in their stride. The latest casualty is the word "c-ock" when applied to a male bird. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...
When I was at school, and long afterwards, children used to sing "Who killed C-ock Robin?" without anyone taking offence. In fact, until the RSPB took this amazing step, it had never occurred to me that there was anything untoward about the word, any more than it occurred to children generally. It strikes me that as a society we are failing them in some areas and being over zealous in others.
I see that Yahoo agrees with the RSPB. Never mind!
Do u think they should name and shame those parents who deny access to the children?
Answers:
It is already happening. Many communities feature in the Sunday paper a listing of the area's "Most Wanted" and it frequently includes deadbeat Mom's and Dad's
In some cities in Ohio and Virginia, they have gone so far as to placing the pics and descriptions of deadbeat Mom's and Dad's on pizza boxes (but usually feature the extreme cases where nothing has been paid in years).
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=690...
My opinion is it is a double edged sword; yes, it had helped in the capture of deadbeat parents and gets them to pay child support (at least for a period of time until they disappear and have to be tracked down again) or go to jail. The downside is the effect it can have on the poor children seeing the postings, or worse yet, classmates seeing the posting and taunting the child(ren) over having a parent labeled as a "deadbeat" publically. It is not only humiliating, it is damaging to their self-esteem as the child is 1/2 of each parent, the child interepts it as they THEY are half "deadbeat" and a loser.
yes.
Deny who access? The other parent? Not really sure what you mean.
Those parents have no shame. In order to have that, they would need a sense of right and wrong.
I think children of such parents are clearly better off without them, despite the anguish it causes. We can only hope that someone with half a brain (as opposed to their parents) takes them in and loves them.
Access to the children by who?
Boy, don't I wish we could. I have been in a job that has allowed me the opportunity to witness so may so called adults dragging their children through adult issues. I personally believe that if two people can't live together, and have children together, it is BOTH their responsiblities to PARENT the children. Keep their issues out of the children's lives.
To me, The children suffer so greatly. But I am thankful that scriptures remind us that He takes care of the children.
Yes they should name them! My oldest sister was left to raise four children by a runaway father. In 10-years she received 20 dollars in child support. Because he lived in another state there was not much she could do. So her family and uncle Sam (you and me) had to flip the bill. Meanwhile the erstwhile father created another family and lived happily ever after. They changed the law where she gets his income tax refund money but that is a 100 dollars a year.
So I say put their wretched faces on billboards, TV, Movie theaters screens.
DO u think that the 2and amendment right to bear arms shouldn't change?
im doing a essay in Social studies and the Q: is Should anything be done to the second amendment right to bear arms
Answers:
The second amendment to the United States Constitution should not be changed. Citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms because of this amendment, and I, for one, would like to see that right remain.
My fear would be that if that right were up for debate, it would be forfeited to the lobbyists and bleeding heart clubs.
No, it should not be changed. And the correct abbreviation for second is 2nd, not "2and".
The ammendment should be changed to clarify the definition of "A well regulated militia." Other than that, no.
It should be clarified in language to clearly communicate either (1) the right to bear arms for the purpose of national defense (militia) or (2) the right of the individual to bear arms. As written, it's a tug-of-war among varying interpretations.
It should NOT be changed - just like any of the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights . The BoR identifies those rights that are considered to be pre-existing (ie, God-granted and guaranteed - not granted by the Constitution).
I think it shouldn't change. My brother and family live in the South and hunting is a BIG part of their life. I would never want to take that from them.
The crooks are going to be crooks and get guns regardless of what laws are passed. Where there is a will, there is a way.
It should not be changed.
No, the reason that the amendment was given was to give power and leverage to the people in order to defend themselves.
It should never be change,it is a basic right of Americans to own a gun if they wanted to.If a country wants to take your guns away they must be going to do something you might want to shoot them for!"Dr. Madd" my friend said this and it's true.
Yes, it should remain the same. I wrote the following short essay for a secular humanist publication on this very subject:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
My contention, based on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, the definition of “Militia” in the 18th century, and the way of life in 18th century America, is that the Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess firearms.
How so? The sentence as it reads does not restrict the lawful ownership of guns to members of the militia. It merely gives that particular rationale for not using the Constitution to attempt to take away that right. There are many other good reasons to own guns; those who drafted this particular amendment chose the militia argument because it had to do with government service.
The definition of “Militia” was very broad in 18th century America. In effect, it included all able-bodied adult males within certain broad age limits. This definition excluded women, the elderly, youth, and the infirm. All other men were expected to own at leas one rifle, to practice shooting and close-order drills with their neighbors, and to be prepared to answer the call to arms when given by the appropriate public officials. This definition of “Militia” indicates that the Second Amendment existed not only to place a well-honored freedom under Constitutional protection, but also to ensure a large supply of well-trained, well-armed soldiers.
And finally, 18th century America was an overwhelmingly rural society. Save for a few small cities on the coast, the new nation was a frontier (in the American sense of the word). As we know from Westerns, a man with a gun represented the Law—and the Law may be legislated and executed by him off-the-cuff when need be. On the frontier, people hunt, engage in target practice and competitions, and defend their home with guns. From these facts, we can intuit that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have been wholly incapable of even dreaming of a future society without guns; they were so much a part of everyday life.
I believe that those who wish to make the purchase, ownership, and use of guns illegal in America would have to first gather support from millions of Americans in an effort to ratify a new Constitutional amendment abrogating the Second Amendment. That’s the only way they could possibly achieve their ends legally. Could this be done? Should it? I seriously doubt it.
I suspect that this is why most gun control advocates avoid the issue and attempt to get their way through legislation. The only gun control supporter I know of who called for repeal of the Second Amendment was Michael Kinsley, late of CNN’s “Crossfire.” (Ironic name, yes?)
This was a brave move on his part. He was no hypocrite. But, I wonder how many gun control advocates winced when they heard him say his piece?
It’s likely that America, which has ceased being a frontier society many generations ago, will never repeal the Second Amendment, even though the percentage of people owning and using guns will continue to drop as we become more citified and suburbanized. That’s fine with me. This merely means that not all coercive force rests in government hands.
Hope this helps
Should it be changed? No. However, you may want to point out that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights which really has an explanation of why the right is being granted. There is no definition in the 1st Amendment as to what speech is, or establishment of religion. There is nothing in the 4th telling us what an unreasonable search is, or why the people should be protected from them, or why the 3rd prohibits soldiers from being quartered in homes. Yet the 2nd says that the right to bear arms is being granted because a well-regulated militia is necessary. Why did this and only this Amendment need a self-contained explanation for the right being granted? And why do so many originalists ignore this part of the amendment?
NO it shouldn't be changed...It gives the people the right to feed there family and to defend them also to defend your nation from outside invaders and from a corrupted government within our nation. Thank God and the NRA that we still got the 2nd amendment...
It's done fine for a couple hundred years, why change it now. If you change it, you'll make victims of innocent citizens when the can't defend themselves.
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms should be restored and all the victim disarmament laws should be repealed. While it is true that more guns lowers crime and that gun bans on school campuses lead to school shootings (though they aren't as big a cause as the use of those murder drugs people call antidepressants), that's beside the point of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is designed so that the people can exercise their right to overthrow the government at any time they wish. Any would-be dictator realizes that he has to ban guns or he risks being overthrown by the people. That's why Hitler worked to ban guns immediately after he was elected, first banning them for Jews, and then banning them for all citizens whose loyalty wasn't unquestioned (meaning anybody who wasn't a member of the Nazis). That's why the mass murdering tyrant Bill Clinton who waged war on his own people at Waco (which was an arson attack by a group of government terrorists who attacked because the people at Waco were purchasing guns) and Ruby Ridge and then had a fed pretend to be one anti-Clinton and blow up a government building with children in it, decided to pass gun control laws. That's why the terrorist organization known as the US Military decided to pass gun control when they went into Iraq to terrorize the Iraqis.
The only reason why "gun control," more properly referred to as "victim disarmament" or "dictatorship protection" has been on the national agenda for the last decade or so is because the Feds are violating rights moreso now than ever and they're legitimately scared that some subset of the American people will toss them from power (which they would deserve, considering that the British got overthrown for far fewer crimes).
When I was in high school they changed the dress code to ban tank tops. I organized a protest on the grounds it violated our second amendment right to "bare arms"
Answers:
The second amendment to the United States Constitution should not be changed. Citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms because of this amendment, and I, for one, would like to see that right remain.
My fear would be that if that right were up for debate, it would be forfeited to the lobbyists and bleeding heart clubs.
No, it should not be changed. And the correct abbreviation for second is 2nd, not "2and".
The ammendment should be changed to clarify the definition of "A well regulated militia." Other than that, no.
It should be clarified in language to clearly communicate either (1) the right to bear arms for the purpose of national defense (militia) or (2) the right of the individual to bear arms. As written, it's a tug-of-war among varying interpretations.
It should NOT be changed - just like any of the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights . The BoR identifies those rights that are considered to be pre-existing (ie, God-granted and guaranteed - not granted by the Constitution).
I think it shouldn't change. My brother and family live in the South and hunting is a BIG part of their life. I would never want to take that from them.
The crooks are going to be crooks and get guns regardless of what laws are passed. Where there is a will, there is a way.
It should not be changed.
No, the reason that the amendment was given was to give power and leverage to the people in order to defend themselves.
It should never be change,it is a basic right of Americans to own a gun if they wanted to.If a country wants to take your guns away they must be going to do something you might want to shoot them for!"Dr. Madd" my friend said this and it's true.
Yes, it should remain the same. I wrote the following short essay for a secular humanist publication on this very subject:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
My contention, based on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, the definition of “Militia” in the 18th century, and the way of life in 18th century America, is that the Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess firearms.
How so? The sentence as it reads does not restrict the lawful ownership of guns to members of the militia. It merely gives that particular rationale for not using the Constitution to attempt to take away that right. There are many other good reasons to own guns; those who drafted this particular amendment chose the militia argument because it had to do with government service.
The definition of “Militia” was very broad in 18th century America. In effect, it included all able-bodied adult males within certain broad age limits. This definition excluded women, the elderly, youth, and the infirm. All other men were expected to own at leas one rifle, to practice shooting and close-order drills with their neighbors, and to be prepared to answer the call to arms when given by the appropriate public officials. This definition of “Militia” indicates that the Second Amendment existed not only to place a well-honored freedom under Constitutional protection, but also to ensure a large supply of well-trained, well-armed soldiers.
And finally, 18th century America was an overwhelmingly rural society. Save for a few small cities on the coast, the new nation was a frontier (in the American sense of the word). As we know from Westerns, a man with a gun represented the Law—and the Law may be legislated and executed by him off-the-cuff when need be. On the frontier, people hunt, engage in target practice and competitions, and defend their home with guns. From these facts, we can intuit that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have been wholly incapable of even dreaming of a future society without guns; they were so much a part of everyday life.
I believe that those who wish to make the purchase, ownership, and use of guns illegal in America would have to first gather support from millions of Americans in an effort to ratify a new Constitutional amendment abrogating the Second Amendment. That’s the only way they could possibly achieve their ends legally. Could this be done? Should it? I seriously doubt it.
I suspect that this is why most gun control advocates avoid the issue and attempt to get their way through legislation. The only gun control supporter I know of who called for repeal of the Second Amendment was Michael Kinsley, late of CNN’s “Crossfire.” (Ironic name, yes?)
This was a brave move on his part. He was no hypocrite. But, I wonder how many gun control advocates winced when they heard him say his piece?
It’s likely that America, which has ceased being a frontier society many generations ago, will never repeal the Second Amendment, even though the percentage of people owning and using guns will continue to drop as we become more citified and suburbanized. That’s fine with me. This merely means that not all coercive force rests in government hands.
Hope this helps
Should it be changed? No. However, you may want to point out that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights which really has an explanation of why the right is being granted. There is no definition in the 1st Amendment as to what speech is, or establishment of religion. There is nothing in the 4th telling us what an unreasonable search is, or why the people should be protected from them, or why the 3rd prohibits soldiers from being quartered in homes. Yet the 2nd says that the right to bear arms is being granted because a well-regulated militia is necessary. Why did this and only this Amendment need a self-contained explanation for the right being granted? And why do so many originalists ignore this part of the amendment?
NO it shouldn't be changed...It gives the people the right to feed there family and to defend them also to defend your nation from outside invaders and from a corrupted government within our nation. Thank God and the NRA that we still got the 2nd amendment...
It's done fine for a couple hundred years, why change it now. If you change it, you'll make victims of innocent citizens when the can't defend themselves.
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms should be restored and all the victim disarmament laws should be repealed. While it is true that more guns lowers crime and that gun bans on school campuses lead to school shootings (though they aren't as big a cause as the use of those murder drugs people call antidepressants), that's beside the point of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is designed so that the people can exercise their right to overthrow the government at any time they wish. Any would-be dictator realizes that he has to ban guns or he risks being overthrown by the people. That's why Hitler worked to ban guns immediately after he was elected, first banning them for Jews, and then banning them for all citizens whose loyalty wasn't unquestioned (meaning anybody who wasn't a member of the Nazis). That's why the mass murdering tyrant Bill Clinton who waged war on his own people at Waco (which was an arson attack by a group of government terrorists who attacked because the people at Waco were purchasing guns) and Ruby Ridge and then had a fed pretend to be one anti-Clinton and blow up a government building with children in it, decided to pass gun control laws. That's why the terrorist organization known as the US Military decided to pass gun control when they went into Iraq to terrorize the Iraqis.
The only reason why "gun control," more properly referred to as "victim disarmament" or "dictatorship protection" has been on the national agenda for the last decade or so is because the Feds are violating rights moreso now than ever and they're legitimately scared that some subset of the American people will toss them from power (which they would deserve, considering that the British got overthrown for far fewer crimes).
When I was in high school they changed the dress code to ban tank tops. I organized a protest on the grounds it violated our second amendment right to "bare arms"
Do u think that some lawyers have become famous just by becoming mediators & make money from both the parties?
after watching on NDTV, the famous lawyers have used their brains in making money than giving justice
Answers:
When 24 years back I joined this profession both these lawyers were in the profession %26 were quite senior at that time. They have earned a lot of reputation %26 money from the profession but I can't understand why they indulged in such a petty affair now in this case. Although indulgence of lawyers in such corruption matter is not a new thing happening for the first time, it is there in %26 it involves not only few lawyers but even few judicial officials. At least now these black sheep鈥檚 are being exposed in public. Hope the bar council of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi %26 the Supreme Court of India will take necessary action against them so that such a corrupt practice may not repeat again.
i can believe that
They expect and take training to take the position of justice.
On the other hand, mediators also ensure that the courts do not get clogged up with cases that can be solved easily through negotiation. Most mediators are appointed by both sides prior to any dispute, just in case one should arise at a later date. The object being that the single mediator is far cheaper than employing two seperate legal teams and going to court
Lawyers make money by dragging out cases and filing unnecessary applications which are not getting any results other than lining their pockets at the gullible clients expense. Another racket is to charge "per date" irrespective whether they take adjournment or conduct argument. Needless to say, they mostly prefer adjournment. Most lawyers read their briefs on the morning that the matter is listed, usually perfunctorily in the courtroom while they wait their turn. Is it any wonder how ill prepared they are ? They do not provide any kind of service commensurate with the astronomical fees they extract from their clients. Disgusting bunch. Not all but most, at least in Mumbai.
Lawyers sometimes mediate between parties and settle issues.It is not wrong.
The amount of pending cases,the time taken to get a judgement,and further appeals in higher courts makes people
pauper and bitter rivals.
Instead a mediation can give mental peace,early settlement of issues with less cost and a give and take mid way gain for both the parties.
So such services are to be welcomed and appreciated
You see there are number of sincere and devoted advocates still existing in our country not caring for money doing efforts to safeguard the interests of their clients. I think they are much better than some of the politicians.
Of course it happens.
Since I don't live in India, I can only speak about here in the U.S.A.
Anyone remember the guy right who replaced Doug Lewelyn on the People's Court? It was Harvey Levin. He now is a frequent guest on various news programs as a legal consultant. He also has his own show on Court TV.
As far as general consultants, just look at Dr. Phil. He was a consultant to Oprah Winfrey during her Texas beef legal fiasco.
do u know the story of monkey judge %26 two fighting cats ?
In 1970, when I joined law college, everybody advised me that it is an overcrowded profession. In 2001, when I enrolled in the BAR, I was told again the same. In 2007 too, I find practically the same position. Lawyers at NDMC premises in Parliament street, charged 50 paise for preparing an affidavit. Today, I find several doing the same job in Bangalore civil court complex for Rs.10/-. there are lawyers in Chennai, calcutta, bombay and delhi, who charge 5000 to 20000 rupees just to process a file and state whether a case can be made out and whether he would do so. even a negative answer forfeits the amount. there are lawyers at these very places, struggling to make Rs.100 a day, Job elimination, all round in the economy and polity, for a decade and a half, have reduced lawyers too to penury while some mint money, especially those practising criminal law. A much acclaimed, top leftist, occupying prestigious position, as a lawyer refused to take up the case of striking Connaught Place hotel workers, stating that they can not afford him charging Rs.10000 per hour of appearance in the seventies. so much for ideology.
Mediation is an accepted way of resolution of disputes, in the form of Lok Adalats and Arbitration. Sometimes, exasperated by the unavoidable delays in courts, litigants force the lawyers for compromise, much to the lawyer's chagrin and reluctance. Nonetheless, there is some truth in what you say, as you have yourself qualified your question to "some".
Answers:
When 24 years back I joined this profession both these lawyers were in the profession %26 were quite senior at that time. They have earned a lot of reputation %26 money from the profession but I can't understand why they indulged in such a petty affair now in this case. Although indulgence of lawyers in such corruption matter is not a new thing happening for the first time, it is there in %26 it involves not only few lawyers but even few judicial officials. At least now these black sheep鈥檚 are being exposed in public. Hope the bar council of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi %26 the Supreme Court of India will take necessary action against them so that such a corrupt practice may not repeat again.
i can believe that
They expect and take training to take the position of justice.
On the other hand, mediators also ensure that the courts do not get clogged up with cases that can be solved easily through negotiation. Most mediators are appointed by both sides prior to any dispute, just in case one should arise at a later date. The object being that the single mediator is far cheaper than employing two seperate legal teams and going to court
Lawyers make money by dragging out cases and filing unnecessary applications which are not getting any results other than lining their pockets at the gullible clients expense. Another racket is to charge "per date" irrespective whether they take adjournment or conduct argument. Needless to say, they mostly prefer adjournment. Most lawyers read their briefs on the morning that the matter is listed, usually perfunctorily in the courtroom while they wait their turn. Is it any wonder how ill prepared they are ? They do not provide any kind of service commensurate with the astronomical fees they extract from their clients. Disgusting bunch. Not all but most, at least in Mumbai.
Lawyers sometimes mediate between parties and settle issues.It is not wrong.
The amount of pending cases,the time taken to get a judgement,and further appeals in higher courts makes people
pauper and bitter rivals.
Instead a mediation can give mental peace,early settlement of issues with less cost and a give and take mid way gain for both the parties.
So such services are to be welcomed and appreciated
You see there are number of sincere and devoted advocates still existing in our country not caring for money doing efforts to safeguard the interests of their clients. I think they are much better than some of the politicians.
Of course it happens.
Since I don't live in India, I can only speak about here in the U.S.A.
Anyone remember the guy right who replaced Doug Lewelyn on the People's Court? It was Harvey Levin. He now is a frequent guest on various news programs as a legal consultant. He also has his own show on Court TV.
As far as general consultants, just look at Dr. Phil. He was a consultant to Oprah Winfrey during her Texas beef legal fiasco.
do u know the story of monkey judge %26 two fighting cats ?
In 1970, when I joined law college, everybody advised me that it is an overcrowded profession. In 2001, when I enrolled in the BAR, I was told again the same. In 2007 too, I find practically the same position. Lawyers at NDMC premises in Parliament street, charged 50 paise for preparing an affidavit. Today, I find several doing the same job in Bangalore civil court complex for Rs.10/-. there are lawyers in Chennai, calcutta, bombay and delhi, who charge 5000 to 20000 rupees just to process a file and state whether a case can be made out and whether he would do so. even a negative answer forfeits the amount. there are lawyers at these very places, struggling to make Rs.100 a day, Job elimination, all round in the economy and polity, for a decade and a half, have reduced lawyers too to penury while some mint money, especially those practising criminal law. A much acclaimed, top leftist, occupying prestigious position, as a lawyer refused to take up the case of striking Connaught Place hotel workers, stating that they can not afford him charging Rs.10000 per hour of appearance in the seventies. so much for ideology.
Mediation is an accepted way of resolution of disputes, in the form of Lok Adalats and Arbitration. Sometimes, exasperated by the unavoidable delays in courts, litigants force the lawyers for compromise, much to the lawyer's chagrin and reluctance. Nonetheless, there is some truth in what you say, as you have yourself qualified your question to "some".
Do u like George Bush?
Dont u think that he likes to beleive that he rules the world?
Is he worth anything on ur own scale of judgement? And, dont u think he along with his allied countries is alienating Muslims?
Answers:
Like him? For What.
I mean what is so likeable in him?
Dumb actions, Inane speeches, Idotic expressions,,,... or what?
Yes he is alienating the Muslims, but without understanding that village idiot is actually spoiling his own reputation and image. Alas! He never had a reputation to spoil. George bush is More disgusting than Vomit.
TW K
What's to like?
He is the worst President in US History
no, he's dumb
He is an ego manic. Yes, he thinks he rules the world. He has always gotten what he wanted. If necessary he resorted to illegal means. He has no moral compass to guide him. He is guided strictly by ego. If he wants it or thinks it, then by God it must be the right thing. He is evil and the world hates him. Including me.
Yes he is alienating Muslims. He is alienating the whole world. Some of the people he has made hate us will enact revenge upon America for Bush's evil deeds. They are willing to die themselves in order to achieve this. So, we will all suffer for many many years for the misdeeds and evil deeds of Bush.
I think he's only 10 years old in maturity. I like 10 year olds, usually, but I wouldn't give them power over too much. I don't think they understand enough about how their actions impact other people. Things are often still 'black and white' for many ten year olds.
He has alienated us from most of the world. Most of the trust we built up is gone because of his administration's behavior.
Yes, I like George Bush.
No, I do not think the believes he rules the world.
I respect this man for sticking to his core believes instead of selling out to cowards for the sake of a vote.
Most honest, God (Allah) fearing Muslims don't want anything to do with the extremists that plague the world. Those terrorists wrap themselves in the mantle of Islam but are no more than murders and thieves. President Bush and his allies have not alienated any decent Muslim.
He isn't doing anything to help this country.
George Bush, in my opinion, is a leader who doesn't take into account other people's lives, safety.. That's not what characteristics a leader should have..moreover, he's what most people view as, "a world leader"..
I've just watched on tv, US soldiers in iraq who have been handicapped, many of them had lost their legs, whether one or both! I felt so pity for them.. And some become blinded..others have damaged organs..
The officer's there said, Bush's administration doesn't provide enuff support for these handicapped soldiers..
So, we can see what kind of leader he is. Not to say he think about those innocent civillians in iraq that he had bombed, but guys, He Didn't Really Mind bout his Own Soldiers, man!
Bush is a criminal.
i dont know him... but i imagine he's an ape
Is he worth anything on ur own scale of judgement? And, dont u think he along with his allied countries is alienating Muslims?
Answers:
Like him? For What.
I mean what is so likeable in him?
Dumb actions, Inane speeches, Idotic expressions,,,... or what?
Yes he is alienating the Muslims, but without understanding that village idiot is actually spoiling his own reputation and image. Alas! He never had a reputation to spoil. George bush is More disgusting than Vomit.
TW K
What's to like?
He is the worst President in US History
no, he's dumb
He is an ego manic. Yes, he thinks he rules the world. He has always gotten what he wanted. If necessary he resorted to illegal means. He has no moral compass to guide him. He is guided strictly by ego. If he wants it or thinks it, then by God it must be the right thing. He is evil and the world hates him. Including me.
Yes he is alienating Muslims. He is alienating the whole world. Some of the people he has made hate us will enact revenge upon America for Bush's evil deeds. They are willing to die themselves in order to achieve this. So, we will all suffer for many many years for the misdeeds and evil deeds of Bush.
I think he's only 10 years old in maturity. I like 10 year olds, usually, but I wouldn't give them power over too much. I don't think they understand enough about how their actions impact other people. Things are often still 'black and white' for many ten year olds.
He has alienated us from most of the world. Most of the trust we built up is gone because of his administration's behavior.
Yes, I like George Bush.
No, I do not think the believes he rules the world.
I respect this man for sticking to his core believes instead of selling out to cowards for the sake of a vote.
Most honest, God (Allah) fearing Muslims don't want anything to do with the extremists that plague the world. Those terrorists wrap themselves in the mantle of Islam but are no more than murders and thieves. President Bush and his allies have not alienated any decent Muslim.
He isn't doing anything to help this country.
George Bush, in my opinion, is a leader who doesn't take into account other people's lives, safety.. That's not what characteristics a leader should have..moreover, he's what most people view as, "a world leader"..
I've just watched on tv, US soldiers in iraq who have been handicapped, many of them had lost their legs, whether one or both! I felt so pity for them.. And some become blinded..others have damaged organs..
The officer's there said, Bush's administration doesn't provide enuff support for these handicapped soldiers..
So, we can see what kind of leader he is. Not to say he think about those innocent civillians in iraq that he had bombed, but guys, He Didn't Really Mind bout his Own Soldiers, man!
Bush is a criminal.
i dont know him... but i imagine he's an ape
Do u know how can i get red of child support in ca after i have a new baby from a new marriiage?
Answers:
You can't be serious. You can't stop supporting your first child/children just because you have a new baby. It is your obligation to support all your children. If you can't afford them,don't have them.
what? u want to stop paying child support to ur child from a previous relationship just because u have a new baby?? doubt that will happen until the baby reaches 18 or 21 if they go to college
hopefully, you can't get rid of child support. just prepare to be financially responsible for more than one child now. providing emotional support to your children would be great, too. be a good dad.
your talking about your own flesh and blood not a game to toss away when your done. that's really sad.
the only way you can get out of child support is
#1 to be permanently disabled...determined by a court of law.
#2 Or if your ex remarries and her husband adopts the child , %26 you loose all rights to the child also!
Its your responsibility to raise the fruit of your loins...or the courts will take it out of your paycheck.
Am I very outdated or is it that u have got some issues? Come on b a good dad and a man!
I don't know your stand point so I'm not sure if you're trying to get rid of child support you are paying, or if you are the custodial parent and you want the absent parent to stop paying child support.
If you are the custodial parent you can try to get your ex to sign his rights over to your current spouse and that person can adopt the child. If you can't find your ex you can get a lawyer and put an ad in the paper and if he dosen't respond he automatically gives his rights up. Or you can drop child support(only if you're ont on any kind of goverment assistance) and your ex won't have to pay it anymore.
If you are the absent parent you can sign your parental rights over to the custodial parent, meaning that you will never again have any rights to that child. Your name won't even be on the birth certificate. Or you can ask your ex if they will drop the child support, but then again the person with the child can't do it if they are recieving goverment assistance.
I hope I helped, I know a lot about this kind of thing...lol. You can contact me if you need any more information.
Good Luck!
~Amanda
Do u get charged money on your internet bill if you have a myspace?
3 people in the house has one and we get on it every day
Answers:
No, absolutely not. You get charged for using the Internet but that's just a monthly fee. Any programs and websites you use while on the internet do not get charged separately.
Don't worry and enjoy your myspacing!
no
No you do not get charged for having a myspace
no
no, myspace is a free site.
Answers:
No, absolutely not. You get charged for using the Internet but that's just a monthly fee. Any programs and websites you use while on the internet do not get charged separately.
Don't worry and enjoy your myspacing!
no
No you do not get charged for having a myspace
no
no, myspace is a free site.
Do u get charged money on your internet bill if you have a myspace?
3 people in the house has one and we get on it every day
Answers:
no myspace is free
no
nope :)
its totally free!
no .
no
no myspace is a free serivice and will always be free u will not get charged on your internet provider bill for the service it has nothing to do who u get ur internet from nor does it even matter either way its free and fun-Nate
No, myspace is free and fun no cost,nocharge
No.
my space is a free service, however you should charge them.
MySpace is the SCOURGE OF THE INTERNET!
no its free
myspace is free, but your internet provider may only allow you a certain amount of time to be online, I know AOL used to do that, so you may want to check your bill and make sure you have unlimited access or something to the effect. Other wise you'll get charged for being online, but not for using Myspace
no.
Answers:
no myspace is free
no
nope :)
its totally free!
no .
no
no myspace is a free serivice and will always be free u will not get charged on your internet provider bill for the service it has nothing to do who u get ur internet from nor does it even matter either way its free and fun-Nate
No, myspace is free and fun no cost,nocharge
No.
my space is a free service, however you should charge them.
MySpace is the SCOURGE OF THE INTERNET!
no its free
myspace is free, but your internet provider may only allow you a certain amount of time to be online, I know AOL used to do that, so you may want to check your bill and make sure you have unlimited access or something to the effect. Other wise you'll get charged for being online, but not for using Myspace
no.
Do u beleive the Consitution(s) are the law of the land for the both state & fed govts?
Shouldn't our elected officials be bound by the chains of the Constitition(s)? Seems as if they break the law they should pay the penalty.
Answers:
Yes... what offenses are you referring to?
The constitutiion is the guide in which all American laws and liberties are founded on; however, in this day and time there are issues that our founding fathers never could have imagined. (Think of all the ethical issues and complications that modern technology has brought...). This pertains to state and fed gov. I agree that if one breaks the law regardless of whom they are they should face the penality. Period. I also belive (and the news shows this everyday) that citizens today are so apathtic that EVERYONES civil rights and liberties are slowly being erroded away usually spoon fed to us as " what is best for us". Case in point is the National Security Act (as a result of 911). In the name of "protecting" Americans our basic rights (Bill of Rights) are being taken away every day. Freedoms of speech and most imortantly privacy are going to be a think of the past. Definatly NOT what the founding fathers intended by the rights that were considered to be part of what it means to be an American.
Yes, except where the Constitution makes allowances:
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Answers:
Yes... what offenses are you referring to?
The constitutiion is the guide in which all American laws and liberties are founded on; however, in this day and time there are issues that our founding fathers never could have imagined. (Think of all the ethical issues and complications that modern technology has brought...). This pertains to state and fed gov. I agree that if one breaks the law regardless of whom they are they should face the penality. Period. I also belive (and the news shows this everyday) that citizens today are so apathtic that EVERYONES civil rights and liberties are slowly being erroded away usually spoon fed to us as " what is best for us". Case in point is the National Security Act (as a result of 911). In the name of "protecting" Americans our basic rights (Bill of Rights) are being taken away every day. Freedoms of speech and most imortantly privacy are going to be a think of the past. Definatly NOT what the founding fathers intended by the rights that were considered to be part of what it means to be an American.
Yes, except where the Constitution makes allowances:
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Do torrance f. cooper have a criminal background?
please email me
Answers:
that's hilarious, what makes you think people will do this, and even if they could what makes you think the name torrance f. cooper is enough information? Come on.
DOES
Is he more then one person? You must have graduated from Trenton High in New Jersey, no child left behind.
Answers:
that's hilarious, what makes you think people will do this, and even if they could what makes you think the name torrance f. cooper is enough information? Come on.
DOES
Is he more then one person? You must have graduated from Trenton High in New Jersey, no child left behind.
Do they sell Chriss angel merchandise at hot topic?
if not where can i buy some
Answers:
Why is this in the law and ethics forum? We're not a shopping network.
its possible but i doubt it
Answers:
Why is this in the law and ethics forum? We're not a shopping network.
its possible but i doubt it
Do they have cameras in female public bathrooms?!?
public restrooms?
Answers:
Unless someone wants a multi-MILLION dollar lawsuit, I would say no. That would be a blatant violation of a persons right to privacy.
In these times: probably
1. people are security crazy
2. all people really care about is property crimes so maybe to prevent stealing
I wouldn't doubt it
I dont believ that its legal for any reason
I don't think they have cameras in any public restrooms. Why would they?
Yes. I operate 3 of them. I'm with security.
p.s. I saw you in taco bell.
yes they do,, where do you think the Girls gone Wild videos come from?
Mmm could be....No one trusts anyone these days.
i doubt they would have any cameras in the stalls...but they might have them by the sinks or by the door possibly
No I do not. That is for sicko's , and ones who want to go to jail for a very long time.
yes
Nope. That would be a direct invasion of your privacy, and civil rights. I also highly doubt they would apply the patriot act to a bathroom stall.
yeah, maybe...although I thinks it's illegal , I sure don't like the idea that a 300 pounds security guard, while eating chetoos , watches me and my girl going at it...
I do .
Don't know, but they do have some cameras in Mens' Bathrooms.
Because I saw a picture on the Internet of Hillary standing up, and using a mens' urinal.
The caretaker set up a dummy one in the school where I was working as a trainee. I've never seen such a public outcry. I glad I was in on it.
Well, I'm a guy however I can confidently say no. They can't do that. That's a invasion of your privacy.
i sure hope not
NO!!!!!!
Answers:
Unless someone wants a multi-MILLION dollar lawsuit, I would say no. That would be a blatant violation of a persons right to privacy.
In these times: probably
1. people are security crazy
2. all people really care about is property crimes so maybe to prevent stealing
I wouldn't doubt it
I dont believ that its legal for any reason
I don't think they have cameras in any public restrooms. Why would they?
Yes. I operate 3 of them. I'm with security.
p.s. I saw you in taco bell.
yes they do,, where do you think the Girls gone Wild videos come from?
Mmm could be....No one trusts anyone these days.
i doubt they would have any cameras in the stalls...but they might have them by the sinks or by the door possibly
No I do not. That is for sicko's , and ones who want to go to jail for a very long time.
yes
Nope. That would be a direct invasion of your privacy, and civil rights. I also highly doubt they would apply the patriot act to a bathroom stall.
yeah, maybe...although I thinks it's illegal , I sure don't like the idea that a 300 pounds security guard, while eating chetoos , watches me and my girl going at it...
I do .
Don't know, but they do have some cameras in Mens' Bathrooms.
Because I saw a picture on the Internet of Hillary standing up, and using a mens' urinal.
The caretaker set up a dummy one in the school where I was working as a trainee. I've never seen such a public outcry. I glad I was in on it.
Well, I'm a guy however I can confidently say no. They can't do that. That's a invasion of your privacy.
i sure hope not
NO!!!!!!
Do the things we own really just own us?
we spend most of our time working for money to support the funding for the things we own. But we hardly spend time with them. Kinda like my internet service. I pay a monthly fee but I only use it when Im home. If I stayed home, then I could use it but then I wouldn't have any money to have it. If we regulated business to only charge us for what we use and at a set profit then that would make a lot of sense for the consumer. Businesses however wouldn't make near as much money. What gives?
Answers:
we own the concept that we actually need all these things,but in reality we'd probly be a lil better off globally and enviromentally, without all we really have , this obsession is slowly poisoning us all:)
happiness is not found in the abundance of things - i think jesus said that
Sorry to be the one to spring this on you buddy but you don't own anything. The Government "allows" you to call yourself the owner and use and operate like an owner as long as you pay taxes. Stop "paying" taxes and see how long you get to "own" anything. It sux but it is true.
Answers:
we own the concept that we actually need all these things,but in reality we'd probly be a lil better off globally and enviromentally, without all we really have , this obsession is slowly poisoning us all:)
happiness is not found in the abundance of things - i think jesus said that
Sorry to be the one to spring this on you buddy but you don't own anything. The Government "allows" you to call yourself the owner and use and operate like an owner as long as you pay taxes. Stop "paying" taxes and see how long you get to "own" anything. It sux but it is true.
Do the surviving members of your family have to pay any extra debt left after you die?
If person does not have enough in assets to cover their debt, does their family inherit their debt? Who has to pay? What if there is nothing to recover. Say the debt in question is for a car that is upside down in value/debt. OR What if it were leftover financial aid for school debt. Who ends up paying for this, hospital bills? Assume unmarried adult, living parents and siblings no decendents.
Answers:
You need to get a lawyer to probate the death. If this is done properly the debts will be forgiven. It happened to me with my mother's car a few years back, it was horribly upside down, my choices, after talking to the bank were to refi in my name or surrender it back to the lender. I chose to surrender it back to the lender because it was not a practical vehicle for where I live. They sold it at auction and that was the last I heard about it. Usually if you call the lenders and send them a copy of the death cert they just forgive the debts.
The debt stays with the estate. If the debt exceeds the value of the estate, there is no recourse, no one else is responsible.
No the debt is part of their estate. Unless it is in someone elses name too (a cosigner) they are not liable.
If there are not enough assets to cover the debts , the balance is written off. The debts of one person are nontransferable unless another person has possession of property given to them by the debtor to hide that property from the estate.
Answers:
You need to get a lawyer to probate the death. If this is done properly the debts will be forgiven. It happened to me with my mother's car a few years back, it was horribly upside down, my choices, after talking to the bank were to refi in my name or surrender it back to the lender. I chose to surrender it back to the lender because it was not a practical vehicle for where I live. They sold it at auction and that was the last I heard about it. Usually if you call the lenders and send them a copy of the death cert they just forgive the debts.
The debt stays with the estate. If the debt exceeds the value of the estate, there is no recourse, no one else is responsible.
No the debt is part of their estate. Unless it is in someone elses name too (a cosigner) they are not liable.
If there are not enough assets to cover the debts , the balance is written off. The debts of one person are nontransferable unless another person has possession of property given to them by the debtor to hide that property from the estate.
Do the salary earnings of a spouse belong to both the husband and wife or is it officially a separetely owned?
also how is it with debt?
Answers:
I can answer this question in this way. I work for a bank and if your name is not on his/her account, then you have no legal rights to any of the money or debt if the account is over drawn. Like wise, the IRS or bill collectors can only go after accounts where the spacific person's social security number is listed. So if you owed money to the IRS but your wife/husband had a sole ownership account, they could not put a lein on it. Now that being said, if you have a joint account, even if only one person makes deposits, the money belongs to both people regardless of their relationship. Even if you put a complete stranger on your account, (yes it happens), they can empty and even close the account and it would be legaly ok.
both share in the earnings and debt
they both own both
Depends on the state. I think communal property is becoming more the norm, but I don't know for sure. That's your keyword search - "communal property law".
Contrary to what our banker said, it doesn't matter what the ownership of the account is if the account or the monies in deposit were accummunlated DURING the marriage.
The business of banking does not have priority over the law. And in a marriage, all assets and debts are marital property until such time as a LEGAL separation or divorce is granted.
Even if the account was opened before the marriage, all monies deposited after the marriage become marital property.
So, while a debt collector may not unilaterally place a lien on an injuried spouse's account, the court can.
EDITED FOR MANGOPUPPY'S CONTINUING EDUCATION:
Contrary to what you believe or what law school you attended, the issue of marital versus separate property is a matter for the court to decide during a dissolution of the marriage.
And also, contrary to your belief, there is no such designation as "Separate Property" state. There are provisions in all 50 states for the designation of separate versus marital property and in division of assets, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION principles that apply to some state statutes.
However, with 35 years of International and U.S. experience in the matter of family law, I have never read a statute which stipulates BEFORE DIVORCE the division of separate or marital property.
As I said, that is a designation left to the court upon dissolution of the marriage and not before.
In our current situation, and while the marriage is intact, the ONLY way the spouse's account could be protected is to have the court award her 'injured spouse' protection and then only on a showing that the debt is not being defeated by depositing marital funds into the account.
If $0.01 of marital funds or other assets have been deposited into the account, then it has been converted to marital property regardless of what the ownership documents say.
In the US of A, if you agree to share accounts, the money is legally shared. If you keep separate accounts, then the money legally belongs to the person who's name is on the account. Debt, however, is different, once married, if one person runs up a credit card debt, BOTH parties can be held liable, as being married is being considered " as one ". That's why you hear horror stories of divorces, where one spouse runs up a credit card, then leaves, leaving the other responsible ( my sister had that happen to her ). I personally keep joint and separate accounts with my wife. if one is more irresponsible than the other, the more responsible one shouldn't have to take the fall, too. I believe a little "self"-ishness is ok, it's ok to NOT share everything in life.
In a marriage, all assets belong to both, equally shared. Same thing with debts...they both own them equally.
Any asset or debt accumulated during the marriage is split 50-50...
The answer to your question is that it all depends on the state in which the H and W live and where they were married -- whether it's a "community property" state or a "separate property" state. I believe there are currently 14 community property states; most states in the U.S. are separate property states. So depending on where you live, the earnings are PRESUMED to fall under the category of separate property or community property, unless the H and W have both agreed to a "transmutation" meaning that they have agreed to change the nature of the earnings / debt from community property to separate property, and vice-versa.
TO HEXELIEBE: I assumed the asker's question related to categorization of earnings upon dissolution; if I was mistaken, I apologize to the asker and all readers. Also, I will not get into an argument with you regarding the particulars in all 50 states, but as I stated, I was explaining the PRESUMPTION of the courts in the event of a dissolution. And for your information, here in California we do distinguish between "community property" and "separate property" states, vis-a-vis the aforementioned "presumption" placed by the courts.
Answers:
I can answer this question in this way. I work for a bank and if your name is not on his/her account, then you have no legal rights to any of the money or debt if the account is over drawn. Like wise, the IRS or bill collectors can only go after accounts where the spacific person's social security number is listed. So if you owed money to the IRS but your wife/husband had a sole ownership account, they could not put a lein on it. Now that being said, if you have a joint account, even if only one person makes deposits, the money belongs to both people regardless of their relationship. Even if you put a complete stranger on your account, (yes it happens), they can empty and even close the account and it would be legaly ok.
both share in the earnings and debt
they both own both
Depends on the state. I think communal property is becoming more the norm, but I don't know for sure. That's your keyword search - "communal property law".
Contrary to what our banker said, it doesn't matter what the ownership of the account is if the account or the monies in deposit were accummunlated DURING the marriage.
The business of banking does not have priority over the law. And in a marriage, all assets and debts are marital property until such time as a LEGAL separation or divorce is granted.
Even if the account was opened before the marriage, all monies deposited after the marriage become marital property.
So, while a debt collector may not unilaterally place a lien on an injuried spouse's account, the court can.
EDITED FOR MANGOPUPPY'S CONTINUING EDUCATION:
Contrary to what you believe or what law school you attended, the issue of marital versus separate property is a matter for the court to decide during a dissolution of the marriage.
And also, contrary to your belief, there is no such designation as "Separate Property" state. There are provisions in all 50 states for the designation of separate versus marital property and in division of assets, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION principles that apply to some state statutes.
However, with 35 years of International and U.S. experience in the matter of family law, I have never read a statute which stipulates BEFORE DIVORCE the division of separate or marital property.
As I said, that is a designation left to the court upon dissolution of the marriage and not before.
In our current situation, and while the marriage is intact, the ONLY way the spouse's account could be protected is to have the court award her 'injured spouse' protection and then only on a showing that the debt is not being defeated by depositing marital funds into the account.
If $0.01 of marital funds or other assets have been deposited into the account, then it has been converted to marital property regardless of what the ownership documents say.
In the US of A, if you agree to share accounts, the money is legally shared. If you keep separate accounts, then the money legally belongs to the person who's name is on the account. Debt, however, is different, once married, if one person runs up a credit card debt, BOTH parties can be held liable, as being married is being considered " as one ". That's why you hear horror stories of divorces, where one spouse runs up a credit card, then leaves, leaving the other responsible ( my sister had that happen to her ). I personally keep joint and separate accounts with my wife. if one is more irresponsible than the other, the more responsible one shouldn't have to take the fall, too. I believe a little "self"-ishness is ok, it's ok to NOT share everything in life.
In a marriage, all assets belong to both, equally shared. Same thing with debts...they both own them equally.
Any asset or debt accumulated during the marriage is split 50-50...
The answer to your question is that it all depends on the state in which the H and W live and where they were married -- whether it's a "community property" state or a "separate property" state. I believe there are currently 14 community property states; most states in the U.S. are separate property states. So depending on where you live, the earnings are PRESUMED to fall under the category of separate property or community property, unless the H and W have both agreed to a "transmutation" meaning that they have agreed to change the nature of the earnings / debt from community property to separate property, and vice-versa.
TO HEXELIEBE: I assumed the asker's question related to categorization of earnings upon dissolution; if I was mistaken, I apologize to the asker and all readers. Also, I will not get into an argument with you regarding the particulars in all 50 states, but as I stated, I was explaining the PRESUMPTION of the courts in the event of a dissolution. And for your information, here in California we do distinguish between "community property" and "separate property" states, vis-a-vis the aforementioned "presumption" placed by the courts.
Do the police need to be notified if you are holding an event on a village green?
Answers:
Depends on the event; in the US, I'd notify them in case you need a permit or in case it's not even legal to be there.
depends whether there is drugs and alchol involved
i'm not really sure, but it wouldn't hurt to let them know. maybe they can assist in some form or fashion.
You probably should contact the local administrative office i.e. city clerk, county clerk or parks and recreation dept. A permit is probably required. They may require you to provide security or to notify the PD.
i would imagine only so if there will be disruption to traffic (i.e parade) or if you feel the attendance will cause a problem (i.e noise, evening do with bar) and so on. Otherwise i would just go ahead with it. It may be worth contacting the local/ parish council (if you have not already) as presumably it is a public space owned and maintained by them and i expect you would have to seek some sort of permission from them.
Yes they do. And if the event is bringing in members of the public then you may also need public liability insurance, depending on nature of event.
I would contact the local council for further assistance.
Yes, they need to be informed along with the local authority who you need to seek permission from. You will find that you need to comply with various health and safety guidelines, depending on the event and the types of equipment involved. Your local authority will advise you.
depends on the event but to be on the safe side you better just contact then better to be safe than sorry =]
depends where you are. Ask the police office or check the local laws yourself to make sure.
you will most likely have to have a permit, you need to contact your county/town clerk's office for zoning info.
No, the city needs to be notified though. And all the necessary paperwork needs to be filled out and read over properly. You should also make sure you understand the conditions laid out by the city for the event. If you do not do this, then you could run into a problem like the Illegal Immigrant protest in L.A. that got out of hand. This was all due to the fact that they didn't follow the rules and the protest route given to them by the city, and therefore, the police were in their right to do what was necessary to disperse the crowd.
Only if your white and working.
Otherwise no one would dare to challenge you fearing political repercussions.
In short yes. However, in order to hold an event in a public area, you will need to obtain a permit from your municipality/city office. In order to get the permit you will have to provide insurance to cover accidents and injuries, your city will tell you how much insurance you need and how to get it.
Additionally, you will have to get signatures from other offices in the city such as fire and police. Chances are one of the requirements of the permit being granted is that you can have police present.
Check with your Parish Council.
Don't worry, if there are cars parking, with potential lolly for the Chief Contables bonus fund, they will come along anyway.
Do the employee unions/GOVERNMENTS get unlimited ADVANTAGES/benefits when they organise strikes & Bandhs?
Okay but what about the innocent people getting inconvenienced!!!!!!...
People who have nothing to do with strikes/bandh getting inconvenienced!!!!!!...
Answers:
It is true that the protests exposes the public to avoidable inconvinience.but in the absence of any provision like compulsory arbitration the strikers cannot be deprived of their demcratic rights. If they were it would open the Pandor's box and the public also would be similarly robbed of the right of silent protests. It cannot be said that the public has nothing to do with the issues of the strikers because the public is also part and parcel of the same society, a part of which(thestrikers) are denied their rightful dues.
As on today it is essential to have Unions to protest against any Govt.In the ancient period ,people would have not have any broder outlook,always had to treat the,employees or workers or subordinates ,with lesser importance.So formation of Unions were essential.In the present day world,one is depending on the other,why shall there be unions,protest and strike .Why don't the heiriarcy management think to give the benefits at the appropriate time, and the get things done ,in amicable manner.Still there are certain high official treat the junior officer as their puppets .The higher position is given to have a very good supervision over the work of the down level people.There are people, still threating the peole as like in schools.When this shameful activity is going to wiped out from this country, then, the Unions can be withdrawn .
People who have nothing to do with strikes/bandh getting inconvenienced!!!!!!...
Answers:
It is true that the protests exposes the public to avoidable inconvinience.but in the absence of any provision like compulsory arbitration the strikers cannot be deprived of their demcratic rights. If they were it would open the Pandor's box and the public also would be similarly robbed of the right of silent protests. It cannot be said that the public has nothing to do with the issues of the strikers because the public is also part and parcel of the same society, a part of which(thestrikers) are denied their rightful dues.
As on today it is essential to have Unions to protest against any Govt.In the ancient period ,people would have not have any broder outlook,always had to treat the,employees or workers or subordinates ,with lesser importance.So formation of Unions were essential.In the present day world,one is depending on the other,why shall there be unions,protest and strike .Why don't the heiriarcy management think to give the benefits at the appropriate time, and the get things done ,in amicable manner.Still there are certain high official treat the junior officer as their puppets .The higher position is given to have a very good supervision over the work of the down level people.There are people, still threating the peole as like in schools.When this shameful activity is going to wiped out from this country, then, the Unions can be withdrawn .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)