freethefly

The idea of a company is created by one or more investors (owners, venture capitalists.) A company can only exist if it has employees. Remove the employee from the equation and the company remains only as an idea. People (employees) are needed to bring forth a concept into reality. Products do not materialize out of thin air. Do you own a company? Fire all of your employees and do not replace them. I am 100% positive that your company will cease to exist. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

A company exist because of the employees. The vast number of jobs, here in SW Missouri, are non-union. Average pay is $8.00 per hour. Most employees pay for their "benefits." Most of the jobs work 39 hour weeks, making them part time. This part of the state is 80% republican. An extremely high number of people, in this area, collect government benefits, due to low wage jobs. Not so in areas of the state where unions thrive and people earn a wage that allows them to stay off of the government dole. Those areas are overwhelmingly democrat and in larger cities, such as St. Louis. Now, I do agree that some locals demand more than what a small company can afford. That needs to stop. They need to meet in the middle and shake hands as the company rises and falters. After all, it is management and employees that make a company. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I think you could use the word SCAB scratched into his car as a clue here. I very much doubt that the IBEW condone what individual members or locals do. Much the same that the U.S. Army does not condone the crimes that individual members commit. Statement from the IBEW and CWA in relation to the Verizon strike: http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5347868/ibew-cwa-our-unions-oppose-violence-in-any-form It has always been my experience, when a member of the USWA, that criminal acts would not be tolerated as it went against what the union was trying to accomplish. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Could be a coupon for a free oil filter. http://www.wixfilters.com/ Possibly they were confused and thought they were at AutoZone. They were Guatemalan, after all. Probably needed to change oil in their Cheffy P-cup. DanJohnson should had showed them the error of their way. It is what Heyzeus would had done. At least, that's what I'm told. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You should be careful about skipping those scheduled lithium doses. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Where is your proof that the union sent a person to vandalize something and shoot at a person? Where is your proof that the union was even involved? Cite? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history From the ACLU: And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." It would take years of struggle and a bloody civil war before additional amendments to the Constitution were passed, giving slaves and their descendants the full rights of citizenship - at least on paper: The 13th Amendment abolished slavery; The 14th Amendment guaranteed to African Americans the rights of due process and equal protection of the law; The 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote But it would take a century more of struggle before these rights were effectively enforced. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Must invoke. Scopie’s Law States: “In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room.” First formulated by Rich Scopie on the badscience.net forum. This law makes little sense without a background knowledge of Whale.to, a conspiracy theory site which includes such items as the complete text of the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as claims that Aids is caused by vaccination programmes, and that Auschwitz never happened. It has been expanded by posters on rationalwiki.com to include any use of Answers in Genesis in an argument about creationism and evolution. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Sounds like the reality of this country to me. You only have "rights" so long as your current goobermint allows you the privilege of exercising them. Those rights can be restricted to the point of being essentially non-existent. Correct. That is why I brought up the legality of the CCW permit as I believe that it effectively nullifies the 2nd amendment and favors those who oppose the right to bear arms. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

So then there's no such thing as constitutional rights? You're saying that because those rights can be revoked if someone abuses them, we should instead adopt the term "constitutional privileges"? The Constitution doesn't really have a Bill of Rights, it's just a Bill of Privileges? Actually, to be honest, I am in more favor of Constitutional carry as it does reflect the premise of the 2nd amendment. Permits reduces the "Right to Carry" to a privilege. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Mike, as I have clarified for you, as others seem to understand my point, the data in the article did not tell the whole story as it focused on but one year, only guns, and the fear of a blood bath. However, I agree with the article that there were no "blood baths." Your lack of critical input only insults yourself. You tend to do so in every thread as you create strawmen, regardless what another may post. I appreciate that John Rich can debate this and realize that I am not attempting to negate the law, but only looking at the data that I have found. I would appreciate tables that reflect either way on the subject. That said, I am in favor of gun ownership, as I am a gun owner. I would never willfully surrender my gun if guns were banned across the board. I fully support the the Bill of Rights and believe that our country should be guided by the constitution and not by special interest groups. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The statistics from the B.O.J. suggest trends. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/fjsrc/var.cfm?ttype=trends&agency=USMS&db_type=ArrestsFed&saf=IN For persons arrested and booked for violent offenses from 1998 - 2009 1999 - 4,254 2000 - 4,250 2001 - 4,843 2002 - 4,723 2003 - 4,338 2004 - 4,587 2005 - 4,243 2006 - 4,301 2007 - 4,318 2008 - 4,231 2009 - 4,550 Weapons offense, 1998 - 2009 1999 - 4,268 2000 - 5,203 2001 - 6,007 2002 - 7,488 2003 - 9,202 2004 - 9,936 2005 - 9,560 2006 - 9,023 2007 - 8,657 2008 - 8,426 2009 - 8,308 To be fair, the data I am displaying is a summary of nation wide data compiled by the D.O.J. and does not reflect individual States. However, it does reflect trends, nation wide, in the two categories I included. One can conclude in either direction if the law is effective or not. If the law is to protect a "personal freedom" then the use of "personal freedom" is a misnomer in naming the law as such. CCW is a privilege. Just as a drivers license can be revoked, so can a CCW permit. That, in effect, makes it a privilege. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

What is there not to agree with? I was completely unbiased. In fact, one could look at the stats between 2009 and 2010 and say that there was an overall drop in crime of 109 incidents. That would be in favor of CCW laws. Although, it could not specifically indicate that permit holders are responsible for the drop. One can go back to the years 1999 - 2000 and say there was a rise in incidents of 235 in favor of CCW laws. What caused the drastic increase? You cannot say it because citizens were unarmed and criminals took advantage of that as it would not mesh with the low rate of 1999 and 2001. However, those in opposition could point out that between 2000 and 2001 there were a greater drop of 357 incidents in crime. From there, there was a sharp rise to 649 incidents, followed by slight up and down variations in numbers. Trends tend to favor those in opposition than those who propose CCW laws. As I have said, a five to ten year study would provide a better assessment on the law. If the numbers continue to drop with no rise within the years assessed it would show that CCW laws might very well be responsible. If, within those years, past trends continue it would indicate just that, that crime waves are trends. Those in opposition would surely point that out. I am neither for nor against CCW laws. I much rather not have my name in another government data base. If I wished to carry a gun, and I have in the past, I'd do so without the permission of the government. To me, that is personal freedom. My opinion is CCW law goes against personal freedom as one must get permission first and pass a test. That alone puts CCW in the same category of a drivers license making it a privilege and not a right. I said no such thing. Sad attempt to create a strawman. Rebut? The numbers I provided can be argued both ways. They are without bias. If you were able to look at the data and fully comprehend, you would see that. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that you tend to argue without merit. You have the propensity to create a strawman argument. That, in itself, is childish. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Well, our pledge of allegiance is a socialist pledge written by a socialist to reflect socialism. So, whenever on recites the pledge, they are vowing allegiance to socialism, whether they realize it or not. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You have proven nothing as you have failed to comprehend my reply. Again, I stated in my reply that the numbers covered all crime in bars and restaurants and was not weapon specific, as those statistics are not available, as far as I know. Any intelligent person could comprehend that. You, on the other hand, would argue the color of the sky if one said it was blue on its bluest day. Good luck with that. As far as I am concerned you may reply, childishly as you will, and I shall not entertain you as I prefer debate with those who can actually debate on an adult level. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Perry does seem to be the darling of the moment. He should run as an independent. He would, possibly, appeal to a broader spectrum. The "R" by his name hurts him. I've yet to see anything but snippets on Dr. Paul. Shame as he has so much that needs to be heard. I like that he does not resort to name calling as the others have done and will continue to do so. It's a mockery on the whole process. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The numbers given in the PDFs supplied by the VA State Police do not supply information on weapon used. I have stated such in my reply. My numbers represent all violent crimes committed in bars and restaurants. People can legally carry a knife. Are knife related crimes reduced because of such. No, they are not. As for gun specific numbers? I could find none. I'm certain that Mark Bowes, the author of the article, was granted access for his piece. If I had access, I would had used only such in my reply. Most would realize that, as I said as such. Yet, you have a serious problem with comprehension. Plus, you argue below the level of a child. Good luck with that. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The overall premise of conceal carry laws that has been put forth to support conceal carry law is that criminals will be less willing to commit crimes if citizens are armed. The title of the article "Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants." along with the numbers supplied suggest that CCW laws are responsible for the reduction. It is far to early for such an implication. The piece does go on to show that some of the crimes were committed by holders of CCW permits, so the writer was not being strictly bias. And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found. A survey of the data in five to ten years would serve the debate far better than this of one year. Even still, if in one year of a five year study shows that ten people were gun down by permit holders, that would not suggest that the law lead to a "blood bath." Not at all, and I have never suggested such. My reply showed upward and downward trends in violent crimes in bars and restaurants and that patrons carrying concealed guns do not sway the trends. Yet, as I have already asserted, it is too early to suggest that the law is without merit. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

A drop of 8 and compared with only one year does not support the debate that guns in bars/restaurants reduce crime. My research reveals trends that suggest otherwise. B=Bar R=Restaurant 1999 B 240, R 148 = 348 2000 B 255, R 368 = 623 2001 B 266, R 141 = 266 2002 B 216, R 433 = 649 2003 B 236, R 430 = 666 2004 B 270, R 371 = 641 2005 B 264, R 392 = 656 2006 B 265, R 361 = 626 2007 B 266, R 442 = 708 2008 B 271, R 417 = 688 2009 B 270, R 356 = 626 2010 B 224, R 293 = 517 For a 12 year period 7054 violent crimes were committed in bars/restaurants in Virginia for an average of 587.83 per year. Considering that 1999 had a total of 388 and 2001 had a total of 266 violent crimes committed in these establishments compared to the 517 in 2010 it cannot be established that guns in bars and restaurants is responsible for the decrease. It should, also, be noted that a downward trend in violent crimes occurred between 2007 and 2008, 2008 and 2009, as well as between 2009 and 2010. The information supplied in the Virginia State Police Past Crime in Virginia Publications do not give what type of weapons were used. I totaled the statistics for the categories mentioned in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The categories for Violent Crime Location By Offense were typically found on page 43 in the PDFs. http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia.shtm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Why should the money he gives to charity be taxed twice? It was taxed when he made it (and he thinks that should be a higher tax). Not taxing the contribution would only serve to do more good. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Dr. Paul never advocated reducing payments to vets. In fact, he advocates the opposite. Dr. Ron Paul: I am actually a veteran myself, having served as a U.S. Air Force Flight Surgeon during the Vietnam-era. http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=78 As for the VA health system, he realizes that it is a system that is a drain and does not meet the needs of many vets. If you live far from the nearest VA hospital, it is a burden on the vet as well as the taxpayers. The vet must drive, possibly hundreds of miles to see a doctor. Often, I have had to drive to Little Rock, AR for treatment. From Mt. Vernon, MO. that is 250 miles one way. 500 mile round trip. The taxpayers foots the bill. They put me up in a hotel that cost over $100.00 per night. They pay over $300.00 for my gas. They pay for all of my meals. Why, when there is a civilian hospital that can do the job for less! Dr. Paul believes that we should be given a choice to be treated at a hospital of our choosing and by a doctor of our choice. As a vet, and as a person who has been mired down in the muck that the VA has become, I fully understand his position. As active military or veteran, Ron Paul just may be the only true friend you have in government. He stands on his principles and does so unwavering. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul142.html A vote against Dr. Paul is a vote against America and yourself. RON PAUL 2012

It's all about the love! Kill Your Neighbors (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT) Kill All of Babylon "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT) God Promises More Killing I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT) More Rape and Baby Killing Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT) As long as there is a wedding If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.] (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB) Yup, all from the book of love. And that does not even come close to what is in the book of "How to Live a Moral Life, Lest Thee be Smited." "Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast" Reflections on Religion, 1906 Samuel Clemens "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Casual Observer #1 - What's that I smell? Casual Observer #2 - Smells like a contradiction. Casual Observer #1 - They do tend to have a pungent odor about them. Do they not? Casual Observer #2 - Yes they do and all the more to recognize them in the crowd! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25439 I read it for the first time back in the 70s. I'm currently reading it again. Great book. For a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

STRAWMAN. No-one suggested it would solve the USA's spending problem. They fail to realize that a dollar begins with one penny, then another, and another, and so on... The only way to get to the goal of a dollar is to not spend more pennies than what is coming in. If you get only two pennies a day, you do not spend three pennies a day. You can spend one penny a day and still reach the goal of a dollar and be solvent. Now, a penny is not much, yet to reach the goal of a dollar, every penny counts. To forget about the penny, we'll never reach the goal of solvency. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young