Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Keith W on 2 Aug 2006 04:10 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4pk0d2dguui6ujathghocpj6ebqcr50pf8(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice >> they can be sued for malpractise. > > You're half right. If they give wrong advice they can be sued for > malpractice--although very often in law there is way to objectively > identify right or wrong advice. > Case law is used for that >> They dont go on memory. > > They depend almost entirely on memory when advising clients under > normal conditions. > Incorrect. I have had many professional dealings with lawyers over the years and when giving advice on any but the most simplistic cases they will advise their client to return after they have had the opportunity to review current case law. In many cases they will go for an opinion to a more senior lawyer who specialises in the field concerned. >> You think lawyers who dont tell their clients about >> case law are failing them ! > > No, I do not. In fact, I said virtually the opposite. > You claimed they work from memory, this is not the same as advising clients about case law. >> You have a strange idea there. > > It was your inference, not my idea. > >> Jury trials are a minor part of the practise of law. 90% >> of lawyers work on civil law cases and contractural disputes >> where precedence is vital. > > Precedence is important in law, but that doesn't mean that lawyers > cite it explicitly when dealing with clients. > I didnt claim they did, however they DO refer to it extensively before rendering opinions to clients. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: The Reid on 2 Aug 2006 04:11 Following up to Tchiowa >> but those naughty russkies didnt stick to the principles of >> communism. > >Why not? because it doesn't work. >Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government. If >not then the people will throw it out because the people want to be >allowed to succeed. are we supposed to be surprised, or something? As I have said several times you are fighting yesterdays wars, you told us you learnt at your fathers knee work would solve most problems. Now we have a new type of problem that work can make worse, if misdirected. some things need rethinking, I realise it take right wingers a long time to adjust to change, but it has to be done. >But it was the Socialist economy that crumbled and cause the failure of >the government, not the other way around. We all know that. They saw the "western" model was better and the rest followed. I'm not sure they are fully on top of democracy yet. For some reason you have a penchant for misunderstanding things and then explaining the obvious. >Socialism cannot succeed long term. but you can have public services run from the tax revenue from business in a free market economy. We do, it works. As I told you our friends from Texas are finding their tax + insurance there was more than tax (including NHS) here. >> Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists. > >I don't know enough about their detailed beliefs. which doesn't surprise me, you argue about the situations of the past. find out about the present and the future and its challenges. >I also notice that you decide to argue about whether or not the Nazis >were Socialist and ignore the other half dozen specific examples of the >destructiveness of Socialist governments. nobody is talking about socialist governments, except you. I live in a free market capitalist system. I am talking about things like the desirability within that system of free at point of delivery medicine (something civilised countries see as a compassionate "must have") and curbing some types of consumption to constrain global warming, partly by doing things slower and more environmentally efficiently, meanwhile you talk of nazis and the CCCP........ >BTW, it's my parents 50th wedding anniversary coming up Congratulate them for me. >so I'm going to >sin and fly myself and my wife half way around the world to celebrate >with them. So you'd better stay home and do the "sackcloth and ashes" >thing to keep the world in balance. I suppose that comment well represents the crass short sighted selfishness and state of denial of the American right. The bishop of London would have something to say to you! -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: Keith W on 2 Aug 2006 04:17 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bem0d2llpd94t8o9bgqsvolkjkj26mmuq0(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> Such as whom ? > > Whomever they can conquer. > So which energy rich countries do you think China can conquer ? Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:18 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > They don't understand that taking what you want *NOW*!!!!! and > > not thinking about investing in the future inevitably leads to > > failure. > > How do you reconcile this with runaway deficit spending? Deficit spending primarily investing in the future through security, infrastructure, job creation, etc. Ask again. > > They don't understand the simple adage that "Anything the government > > gives to the people it must first take from the people" and they don't > > understand the basic principle of economic entropy which shows that > > every time the government inserts itself into a transaction there is an > > inevitable loss of value. > > When the service or product in question is provided by a monopoly, it > is best if that monopoly belongs to the government, mainly because it > removes the profit motive. First it is rarely good that the monopoly exists. Split up the monopoly and reinstate the profit motive and everyone benefits. > Public entities tend to place an emphasis on service, Which public entity would that be? Ever had to renew your DL at Department of Motor Vehicles? Call that "service"? Ever had to deal with Veteran's Affairs? Do you think that Pentagon Procurement cares about "service"? My wife is foreign born so I had several opportunities to experience public entity "service". Like having an appointment at the Consulate for the visa interview and waiting 7 hours in the waiting room after the scheduled time. Like getting a letter in the mail telling me we had to proceed to the next step and it would cost $175, so we sent in the $175 and then 2 months later they responded to thank me and give me the forms that needed to be filled out (as opposed to saying "fill out these forms and send us $175" in one request"). Like going through 4 different steps and each did the same thing (as opposed to paying one time through one fee service and then running the steps, without the 2-3 month delay between each step). Like going to the embassy and having them tell you that they will not give you the papers showing completion of a particular step until 3:00 PM then when they give you the papers saying that you need to pay the cashier, but the cashier closes at 3:00 PM so you have to come back again? Public Service is a complete oxymoron. > or at the very least they do not care about profit; True, they don't care about profit. But neither do they care about service. They don't care about much of anything because they have no competition. > whereas private entities feel their first duty is to make money for > shareholders, and they could not care less about public service. Except that the best way to make a profit is to provide good service. Because if you don't provide good service someone else will come along and provide that good service and take your business away. That's why the profit motive works.
From: Tchiowa on 2 Aug 2006 04:21
Gorazd Bozic wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > The Reid wrote: > >> Following up to Tchiowa > >>> Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist......... > ... > > Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government. > ... > > Socialism cannot succeed long term. > > So, was USSR Communist or Socialist in your oppinion? You'll have to > make up your mind. Hint: see what USSR stands for... :-P Absolutely both. > Or did you mean to say that Communism = Socialism? Pretty much, yes. Communism is one form of Socialism. Read Marx. Communism is not much more than militarily enforced Socialism. |