From: Hatunen on
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:27:54 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>TOliver writes:
>
>> Conspiracies? The larger the entity the more rapidly
>> the conspiracy is revealed, and the federal government's capacity to mount
>> and continue a conspiracy ranks right up there with a classroom of 7th grade
>> girls.
>
>Seventh-grade girls are very good at this.
>
>> Just be be clear, would you enumerate and describe which of your real or
>> imagined constitutional rights have been circumscribed or eleiminated
>> lately?
>
>The First Amendment (freedom of speech and the press, peaceful
>assembly), the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure,
>probable cause), and the Fifth Amendment (grand jury, due process,
>seizure of private property) spring immediately to mind.

Um. Aren't you in France? So how were your First Amendment rights
circumscribed by the French? And why haven't you taken them to
court about it; that's how you enforce your First Amendment
rights.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TOliver writes:
>
> > Conspiracies? The larger the entity the more rapidly
> > the conspiracy is revealed, and the federal government's capacity to mount
> > and continue a conspiracy ranks right up there with a classroom of 7th grade
> > girls.
>
> Seventh-grade girls are very good at this.
>
> > Just be be clear, would you enumerate and describe which of your real or
> > imagined constitutional rights have been circumscribed or eleiminated
> > lately?
>
> The First Amendment (freedom of speech and the press, peaceful
> assembly), the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure,
> probable cause), and the Fifth Amendment (grand jury, due process,
> seizure of private property) spring immediately to mind.

You wouldn't care to cite examples, would you?

From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:52:33 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keithnospam(a)kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1154834545.305768.182160(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Keith W wrote:
> >>> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1154650659.478476.197950(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>> > They will pay the doctor for you at a rate that they have set. That's
> >>> > controlled rates. Controlled wages and prices.
> >>>
> >>> Nope , Medical practises are paid fees based on a complex formula
> >>> that reimburses them based on the number of patients treated,
> >>> the nature of that treatment etc. Individual doctors are either
> >>> employees of or partners in that practise
> >>>
> >>> Within hospitals doctors are employees of the health care trust
> >>> but senior consultants also work a protion of their time in
> >>> private practise
> >>
> >> So you're saying that the NHS calculates a rate rather than has a flat
> >> rate? Still that means the NHS is setting the rates.
> >>
> >
> >No the NHS provides each practise with a budget administered
> >by the medical staff who run it.
> >
> >>> > The US tried that under
> >>> > Nixon. The runaway inflation under Carter was in part caused by Nixon's
> >>> > dumb attempt to control prices and wages.
> >>>
> >>> Irrelevant
> >>
> >> Very relevant. Price controls always skew the market. The market is a
> >> powerful force. It *will* get even.
> >>
> >
> >There are no price controls as there is no price. Treatment
> >is free at the point of use.
>
> But there are wage controls: the amount a physician receives for
> providing the service is a form of wage control. There are also
> price controls on what the NHS pays manufacturers for the likes
> of pharmaceuticals, etc. If the controls take the form of a
> budget, it still constitutes a form of wage and price control.

And it's also price control. The end receive may not be paying for it
directly, but the NHS is paying the provide. If the NHS is dictating
the price and the market is not allowed to operate, that's price
control. By definition.

From: Tchiowa on

Hatunen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:27:54 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >TOliver writes:
> >
> >> Conspiracies? The larger the entity the more rapidly
> >> the conspiracy is revealed, and the federal government's capacity to mount
> >> and continue a conspiracy ranks right up there with a classroom of 7th grade
> >> girls.
> >
> >Seventh-grade girls are very good at this.
> >
> >> Just be be clear, would you enumerate and describe which of your real or
> >> imagined constitutional rights have been circumscribed or eleiminated
> >> lately?
> >
> >The First Amendment (freedom of speech and the press, peaceful
> >assembly), the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure,
> >probable cause), and the Fifth Amendment (grand jury, due process,
> >seizure of private property) spring immediately to mind.
>
> Um. Aren't you in France? So how were your First Amendment rights
> circumscribed by the French? And why haven't you taken them to
> court about it; that's how you enforce your First Amendment
> rights.

Of course I guess we should start with the question:

"When did the First Amendment to the US Constitution start applying to
the French?"

From: Jordi on

Tchiowa wrote:
"not excessive" while 240 days *is* "excessive"?
> > > Exactly where is the line drawn? Is 236 days "excessive"? 232.45168
> > > days?
> >
> > So then why 7 days holiday is a 'right' and 21 days paid holiday is
> > 'something you have to earn'. Where's the line?
>
> When did I say that 7 days holiday is a "right". You get what you earn.

And at start you get 1 week, how did you earn it? I thought you said
earlier experience doesn't count to a new employer.

> >
> > No. There is a legal minimum on vacation (that is, 4 weeks) starting
> > from there you can get more depending on loyalty, achievement, and
> > whatever else.
>
> (...)
>
> Excessive unearned vacation hurts the economy. Just that simple.
>
> You think you're getting a free lunch, but you're not.

Things are not that simple. You have to take into account that more
free time also increases expenditures, and that benefits the local
economy plus, rested and motivated employees are more productive than
exhausted ones.

>
> > And then there comes the ultimate motivation behind working: a salary
> > that is very likely to increase with time on the job (and not
> > necessarily along with productivity).
>
> Actually it increases by both.

Not necessarily.

>
> > > A system that rewards efforts produces results. A system where benefits
> > > are not tied to efforts produces mediocrity.
> >
> > What about getting paid more?
>
> More pay and more benefits.

Of which there are several, but pay still is the main force behind
working. Still don't you think getting paid more is the best way to
reward efforts?


> > After your first comments on quality of life I can understand why.
> > Thankfully there's more to that than pure income.
>
> Thankfully there's no rule that you can't have both.

That's precisely what 'pure' means in my sentence.

> > Beware, the Commies are back!
> >
> > Laughable.
>
> Read the financial section of your newspapers today. Not quite as funny
> as you'd like to believe.

I do, thanks.


J.