Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Hatunen on 7 Aug 2006 16:02 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:53:01 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tchiowa writes: > >> Mxsmanic wrote: >> >> > 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? > >1. The refusal of the government to allow persons opposed to the >actions of the President from protesting in the same proximity to him >as those who are in favor of those actions. > >2. Government attempts to withhold information from the press or >punish its communication to the press. > >3. Secret wiretaps, illegal wiretaps, secret intelligence courts. > >4. Detention without habeas corpus, access to lawyers, definite >charges, timely and due process. > >5. Civil forfeiture. From the Articles of Confederation onward, there has been a tension between the US government and its people; that's why there was an insistence to include the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) in the US Constitution to limit the power of the government. Within ten years of the establishment of the governement under the Constitution, the government had passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Clearly unconstitutional, but the authority of the Supreme Court to make such a determination had not yet been fully established. The latter 1910s and early 1920s saw the government pushign aside rights during the era of the so-called Palmer Raids. Secret wiretaps sprang up almost as soon as there were telephone systems. The government will keep trying to circumvent the Bill of Rights, and the people and the courts and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union keep trying to knock them down. For instancve, the courts have already ruled that American citizens do not lose their rights when detained at Guantanamo. From thesis and antithesis, we get synthesis. Meanwhile, I suggestyou obtain a book on American constitutional law. For isntacne, civil forfeiture is not considered unconstitutional. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: jeremyrh.geo on 7 Aug 2006 16:15 David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate wrote: > <jeremyrh.geo(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Martin wrote: > > > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:23:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> > > > wrote: > [] > > > > they > > > >just accumulate a bigger stack of largely meaningless credentials. > > > > > > LOL and that coming from an American. > > > > > > If it is so easy in Europe and if qualifications are required to get a > > > meaningful job, why not acquire some yourself? > > > > Mixi is just sore that he is unable to practice gynaecology despite > > having read several books on the subject. > > I thought he was sore after trying to practise some of the exercises on > himself as an experiment. You may have hit on the origin of his "virgins don't menstruate" delusion! B;
From: Hatunen on 7 Aug 2006 16:40 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:46:53 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > >> You can interpret credentials as a shorthand for a near-guarantee of >> performance. > >So the ones I can buy for $40 on the Internet are a suitable >substitute for experience? Those are to credentials what a counterfeit 100 euro note is to money. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 7 Aug 2006 16:42 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:25:13 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> wrote: >Le 07/08/2006, Mxsmanic a crit : >> barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes: >> >>> In article <3iked29l03gmor770df3kh8jqc2m1rsgt9(a)4ax.com>, >>> mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote: >>> >>>> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> >>>> *Date:* Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:46:53 +0200 >>>> >>>> barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes: >>>> >>>>> You can interpret credentials as a shorthand for a near-guarantee of >>>>> performance. >>>> >>>> So the ones I can buy for $40 on the Internet are a suitable >>>> substitute for experience? >>> >>> No. Nobody has claimed that as far as I'm aware. >> >> You just did. You said credentials can be interpreted as shorthand >> for a near-guarantee of performance. Therefore, if I buy credentials, >> I acquire the ability to perform. > >He obvioulsy meant serious credentials. If they aren't serious, they aren't credentials. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 7 Aug 2006 16:43
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:23:13 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The Reid writes: > >> which clearly does not include fakes, numbnuts. > >What defines a "fake" credential? What defines a counterfeit $100 bill? If I buy one on the internet for $5, is it money? ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |