MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:and now you know why your State is run by (Everybody has something they're good at.)s



Nebraska was only a little higher at 28.14% in their May Primary.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
bhodilee wrote:Solution

Plus, a mansion here costs about as much as a cracker box there.

Oh, and we basically have a super majority the other way.

Here ya go, buy This one and I'll just rent the loft in the detached four car garage, which is roughly the size of the house I have now. I mean poopy, the GARAGE has as many bathrooms as my house!



I'd have to downsize slightly to move there, but price is about 30% less than my current house. What are the requirements to waive in to the Nebraska bar? Oh wait, Michelle works for the City now... with a pension and all. We can't move.

Also, the legislature makes $12k/year + per diem... I don't think that can reasonably compare with California legislature's $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $141.86 per day in session.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Nebraska was only a little higher at 28.14% in their May Primary.



Cause we vote pubbie, only question is which pubbie?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
joelsisk wrote:I'd have to downsize slightly to move there, but price is about 30% less than my current house. What are the requirements to waive in to the Nebraska bar? Oh wait, Michelle works for the City now... with a pension and all. We can't move.

Also, the legislature makes $12k/year + per diem... I don't think that can reasonably compare with California legislature's $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $141.86 per day in session.



Yeah pensions are awesome!

And they only get 12 cause raises are by ballot initiative only and we never vote them higher. Honestly, they should be around 20-25k

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:Really? Perhaps one should educate themselves if they want to become a citizen.



Now now...let's be nice.

MarkDaSpark wrote:"The California system awards the top two vote-getters in each race a place on the November ballot even if they are from the same party."

Top two vote getters. Are the only ones allowed on the November ballot. What is unclear about this? It's the law.



Yes, I understand this. I don't think anything I said would suggest otherwise. My comments were also not about this.

MarkDaSpark wrote:In the two states (Louisiana and Washington) that have been using this system, studies have shown that "in more than 80 elections using the top-two system in those states, no independent or third-party candidate has advanced to the general-election ballot."

This is strong evidence that the system disadvantages challengers and discourages diversity. Which would seem more "corrosive".



This is closer to my point, which is about the government establishing two parties. Not about the method of electing people. I agree having high barriers to entry for new political parties is corrosive. In fact, that is essentially my entire point.

I know how the old system works also, and I think they're both craptastic. What I'm saying is that the government should get out of the business of establishing political parties. It's so embedded in the American way that I don't think anybody ever stops to think about it. Why on earth would the government record what party I "affiliate" with? That's insane to me. If I want to be affiliated with a political party then I should go seek out one that matches my priorities. Then I join and vote in their internal elections. All candidates who qualify by virtue of a nomination process (e.g. signature gathering) are on the ballot. None of this 2 person election stuff from the same two ossified parties.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:I'm agreeing with a Canuck?
Yeah, they shouldn't, but our wonderful, informed, educated electorate passed a proposition (iirc) that fundamentally changed CA elections; imo for the worse.
Guess that's what happens when the democratic process runs amuck and one party has a super majority, and now we gotta deal with it.



Well, I think in context it makes some sense to have the primary system work this newfangled way. I'm not really sure though. It sets up the incentive to have candidates move toward the centre rather than cater to the nutbars. I don't think Sparky's stats spoke to that effect, though.

Edit: Basically the new system is an election for all-comers to determine the top 2 for a run-off final election. I think that's silly, but hey, what do I know? I'd like to see preferential voting - then there's no such thing as a wasted vote. Your top choice doesn't make the cut, then your second choice gets your vote and so on down the line until one person has 50%+ of the vote.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin

Minimum wages.

I'm on vacation and have too much time.
I read ~75% of this, but blurred out on some of the stats.

Unintended Consequences of Raising the Minimum Wage

Full article (30 pages) PDF

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
rjquillin wrote:Minimum wages.

I'm on vacation and have too much time.
I read ~75% of this, but blurred out on some of the stats.

Unintended Consequences of Raising the Minimum Wage

Full article (30 pages) PDF



A report from the Bakken oil fields, where the jobless rate is 0.9% and Walmart is paying 2.4 times the minimum wage

Hmmm, extremely low unemployment rate equals higher wages? Imagine that!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Ouch!

I would never have thought about this. I guess it makes sense, so you can't circumvent background checks and such. But considering the other guy was legally eligible to purchase, it just seems like a minor thing.

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Ouch!

I would never have thought about this. I guess it makes sense, so you can't circumvent background checks and such. But considering the other guy was legally eligible to purchase, it just seems like a minor thing.

and the ultimate transfer was done via a Federal agent, that is where the check, in this case, happens.

Totally bunko ruling by the robes, yet again.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Ouch!

I would never have thought about this. I guess it makes sense, so you can't circumvent background checks and such. But considering the other guy was legally eligible to purchase, it just seems like a minor thing.



The ruling is really unfortunate for the guy buying the gun. However, I think this is a case more about the rigidity of the law, right? Had the justices said, "Well, you broke the law but it would have been find either way since your uncle could purchase the weapon himself, you're off," that would set poor president. Yes? Or am I missing a large piece to the puzzle (as I often do with the gun stuff)?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:The ruling is really unfortunate for the guy buying the gun. However, I think this is a case more about the rigidity of the law, right? Had the justices said, "Well, you broke the law but it would have been find either way since your uncle could purchase the weapon himself, you're off," that would set poor president. Yes? Or am I missing a large piece to the puzzle (as I often do with the gun stuff)?


The part that troubles me is, he purchased it, legally, using his name. No foul.
While the final intent was to transfer to another.
Had he just ~given~ or ~sold~ this to the third party, without using an FFL; foul.
But, he didn't.
The ultimate transfer happened via a FFL, and any additional required background check happened there.
No foul.

"Straw" purchasers, as with F&F in AZ, DID NOT complete the transfer via a FFL.
Foul.
And that's what the law is intended to prevent.

Prosecute those that transfer possession to a third party illegally, not this person who did it all by the book.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I'm on your side now.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
rjquillin wrote:Prosecute those that transfer possession to a third party illegally, not this person who did it all by the book.



I'll be the first to admit that I haven't looked into this decision in much depth. From the article linked to, it appears that he did not buy the gun "all by the book" - he had been paid to buy the gun for someone else and lied on the paperwork about it. Whether that merited prosecution under the straw-man buyer rules is a different question, but he should have known that lying on a federal form is not a risk-free thing to do.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin
coynedj wrote:I'll be the first to admit that I haven't looked into this decision in much depth. From the article linked to, it appears that he did not buy the gun "all by the book" - he had been paid to buy the gun for someone else and lied on the paperwork about it. Whether that merited prosecution under the straw-man buyer rules is a different question, but he should have known that lying on a federal form is not a risk-free thing to do.

Without seeing the exact question on the form, we're splitting hairs here.
From the article it appears he supplied his name as the purchaser.
It is not illegal, to the best of my knowledge, to resell or give a firearm to another person; ~IF~ the proper procedure is followed.
The article states he used an FFL.
That's following the rules.

IF, however, your purchase and ~illegally~ surrender the firearm to a third party, without the proper paperwork via an FFL,
that's a FAIL.

The majority robes are pursuing an agenda, activist, theirs. IMO, and that of dissenting Justice Scalia, and three others, support the conservative, non-activist judicial interpretation.

Kagen:“No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. “Had Abramski admitted that he was not that purchaser, but merely a straw … the sale here could not have gone forward.”
is just total BS furthering her desire to restrict Second Amendment Rights. He was the legal purchaser, and further legally transferred ownership; the Feds can follow the paper and see who now posses the firearm.

You see any of that in the F&F "straw" purchases?

And since ownership was transferred via an FFL, the following has no merit.

The majority embraced a broader reading of the gun regulations. Part of the purpose of the disclosure law was to head off straw purchases that might conceal the identity and other required information about the true buyer.
as the ultimate owner is known to the Feds.



CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:I'll be the first to admit that I haven't looked into this decision in much depth. From the article linked to, it appears that he did not buy the gun "all by the book" - he had been paid to buy the gun for someone else and lied on the paperwork about it. Whether that merited prosecution under the straw-man buyer rules is a different question, but he should have known that lying on a federal form is not a risk-free thing to do.



That "someone else" was his uncle, who also was eligible to purchase. It was just that as a police officer, he could purchase the Glock cheaper.

And as RJ noted, he was the buyer. If I give you money to buy wine at a wine club discount, you are the still the initial buyer, it's just that you are then reselling it to me at "cost".

He was also transferring it per the rules.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin
MarkDaSpark wrote:it's just that you are then reselling it to me at "cost".

Sell you wine!?
At cost?!

CT

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I looked up the form. It asks "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person".

The bolded section is bolded on the form, and is immediately after the question. A person who is buying for someone else, for whatever reason, and who answers "yes" to that question is lying on a federal form.

Again, I'm not saying that the prosecution of this person under the particular statute used was the smart thing to do, But he lied.

By the way, the form also states: "I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law", directly above where the purchaser signed.


I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

Back to Iraq, yea or nay?

I mean, this time Al Qaeda is actually there...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rjquillin


quality posts: 167 Private Messages rjquillin
bhodilee wrote:Back to Iraq, yea or nay?

I mean, this time Al Qaeda is actually there...

Go open a bottle of saké and chill.


CT

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
bhodilee wrote:Back to Iraq, yea or nay?

I mean, this time Al Qaeda is actually there...



We were there for a long time and didn't get much to show for it. Unless we're willing to actually take over the country (which would require too many people and too much money to even contemplate), I don't see why we should rush back in.

The place is a disaster. Sure, we'd be better off if this newest bunch of looneys wasn't around, but this kind of thing looks to be a permanent part of the landscape over there. I don't want us to become a permanent part as well.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:We were there for a long time and didn't get much to show for it. Unless we're willing to actually take over the country (which would require too many people and too much money to even contemplate), I don't see why we should rush back in.

The place is a disaster. Sure, we'd be better off if this newest bunch of looneys wasn't around, but this kind of thing looks to be a permanent part of the landscape over there. I don't want us to become a permanent part as well.



+1

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

Patent office cancels Redskins' trademarks, ruling it's 'disparaging'

They ruled on it before and got overruled, and it will probably be overruled again.


Edit: The Other Redskins: Here’s A Map Of The 62 High Schools That Still Use That Nickname

There were 70, but 28 have changed it over the years since 1988.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Patent office cancels Redskins' trademarks, ruling it's 'disparaging'

They ruled on it before and got overruled, and it will probably be overruled again.


Edit: The Other Redskins: Here’s A Map Of The 62 High Schools That Still Use That Nickname

There were 70, but 28 have changed it over the years since 1988.



"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:



I raise your Peter Pan!



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 175 Private Messages chipgreen

The Grapeskins

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

Cross posted from Facebook because (When 2 people love each other…) everyone:

So lets say there's a Federal Program, we'll call it the Farm Program, because that's what it's called. Anyway, say this program is a subsidy program (cause it is in part), that IS NOT WELFARE CAUSE THAT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SUBSIDY AND DAMNIT IT'S DIFFERENT OKAY, IT'S JUST DIFFERENT!, and so, lets pretend this Program that isn't a form of Welfare pays out your subsidy based on your crop yield and lets further pretend that the lower your yield the higher your NON WELFARE SUBSIDY (cause Welfare is in no way intended to act as a buffer between what you make and what it takes to live, nope, not at all). Now lets pretend that in the portions of your field you irrigate you get a really high yield, therefore lower subsidy. Now, lets say you don't irrigate parts of your field and you never have, but you tell the Federales that you do in fact irrigate those parts even though you don't because that lowers your overall yield and nets you MORE NON WELFARE SUBSIDY! Isn't this EXACTLY the definition of fraud? You know, making erroneous claims in order to get money that isn't due to you?
Now, pretend we did exactly the same thing but substituted something like, oh, children maybe, and instead of applying it to farmers we applied to...oh, I dunno, inner city poor folks.
So yeah, basically one is cool and the other isn't? That's the lesson here right, that fraud in certain instances is okiedokie and turrible in others?
My plan, get rid of all subsidies, either make it on your own or die and decrease the surface population.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:My plan, get rid of all subsidies, either make it on your own or die and decrease the surface population.



Okay! It might be a rough transition.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

After being very proud of them the other day with their unanimous cell phone search ruling, they're back up to their old tricks this morning:

Not only are corporations people but they can have religious values!

I give zero poopy how you feel about birth control nor Obamacare, that's (When 2 people love each other…)ing (When 2 people love each other…)tarded.

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
mother wrote:After being very proud of them the other day with their unanimous cell phone search ruling, they're back up to their old tricks this morning:

Not only are corporations people but they can have religious values!

I give zero poopy how you feel about birth control nor Obamacare, that's (When 2 people love each other…)ing (When 2 people love each other…)tarded.



Agreed. Next thing you know they'll be able to vote directly and have custody over children. They are people, after all.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
klezman wrote:Agreed. Next thing you know they'll be able to vote directly and have custody over children. They are people, after all.


If you want a clear legal distinction between yourself and your business you incorporate. Full stop.

Corporations do not have souls, and if you wanted your soul to extend to your business then DON'T INCORPORATE.

If this ruling stated that sole proprietorships and non liability limited partnerships could not be forced to violate the owners/partners religious values then that at least has some merit- there is no legal distinction between the owners and the business. This is just STUPID.

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
mother wrote:If you want a clear legal distinction between yourself and your business you incorporate. Full stop.

Corporations do not have souls, and if you wanted your soul to extend to your business then DON'T INCORPORATE.

If this ruling stated that sole proprietorships and non liability limited partnerships could not be forced to violate the owners/partners religious values then that at least has some merit- there is no legal distinction between the owners and the business. This is just STUPID.



I thought that was the basis for the ruling? It only applies to those cases where a corporation and its owners are basically interchangeable... where there are so few owners as to equate the owners with the corporation without distinction.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
joelsisk wrote:I thought that was the basis for the ruling? It only applies to those cases where a corporation and its owners are basically interchangeable... where there are so few owners as to equate the owners with the corporation without distinction.



That's the doublespeak. The problem is that incorporation is the means by which owners distinguish themselves from the corporate entity.

If your company is just an extension of your person, you're a sole proprietorship or a general or limited partnership, not a Corporation or LLC.

I'm not saying that Corporations don't need "rights"- they obviously do. However they don't have souls, so the right to holding religious beliefs should not be one of those.

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
mother wrote:That's the doublespeak. The problem is that incorporation is the means by which owners distinguish themselves from the corporate entity.

If your company is just an extension of your person, you're a sole proprietorship or a general or limited partnership, not a Corporation or LLC.

I'm not saying that Corporations don't need "rights"- they obviously do. However they don't have souls, so the right to holding religious beliefs should not be one of those.



I don't know. I operate as an LLC, but don't file corporate tax returns, they flow through on my personal Schedule C.

I have no idea what Hobby Lobby does in that regard, but this isn't as broad as you make it out to be.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 173 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

In more important politics, UK lobbying US to end ban on importing haggis.

Let's keep the those dangerous Haggis out of the US!! They look like hairless tribbles, and you know how much trouble those cause!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
joelsisk wrote:I don't know. I operate as an LLC, but don't file corporate tax returns, they flow through on my personal Schedule C.

I have no idea what Hobby Lobby does in that regard, but this isn't as broad as you make it out to be.



Why are you an LLC if not to distinguish yourself (and your partners) from the company legally?

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
mother wrote:Why are you an LLC if not to distinguish yourself (and your partners) from the company legally?



because it's required to get liability insurance? and/or my clients request/demand it? and/or I still get "protection" of assets... though that part gets more fuzzy. and/or for licensing purposes. and/or some additional advantages (like "company contributions" to retirement)?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
joelsisk wrote:because it's required to get liability insurance? and/or my clients request/demand it? and/or I still get "protection" of assets... though that part gets more fuzzy. and/or for licensing purposes. and/or some additional advantages (like "company contributions" to retirement)?



Strange, I can buy personal liability insurance, and your customers are safer if you are not protected by a corporate veil ;)

(Edit: Except of course if you've got a 1099 relationship and it's to protect your real employers from having to treat you like an employee... ;) )

Everything else is basically a benefit of the company not being you/your partners.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

I know the Hobby Lobby case was framed (at least in the media) as being about the question of whether corporations/businesses can have protected religious beliefs. But it's obvious based on the decision that it wasn't really about religious beliefs per se.

The decision is quite clear about how narrowly it should be taken. They specifically say that it does not apply to other medically-related religious convictions such as opposition to blood transfusions and/or vaccinations.

In other words, if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers certain contraceptives, that's okay. But if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers blood transfusions or vaccinations, too bad. You get no exemption.

So it's not really about religious belief; it's specifically about sexual/reproductive taboos.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:I know the Hobby Lobby case was framed (at least in the media) as being about the question of whether corporations/businesses can have protected religious beliefs. But it's obvious based on the decision that it wasn't really about religious beliefs per se.

The decision is quite clear about how narrowly it should be taken. They specifically say that it does not apply to other medically-related religious convictions such as opposition to blood transfusions and/or vaccinations.

In other words, if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers certain contraceptives, that's okay. But if your 'corporate religious beliefs' prohibit providing medical insurance that covers blood transfusions or vaccinations, too bad. You get no exemption.

So it's not really about religious belief; it's specifically about sexual/reproductive taboos.



You can call it whatever you want, but in effect, it's the same thing. Those sexual taboos are taboo because of religious reasons. The narrow focus of this decision opens a bad door, IMO.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen