SD26

I believe he had bill HR1495 that he introduced in March. Of course, when control is seated with another party with its own agenda, it has gone no where.

I don't have any links right now, but there have probably been over thirty alternatives put up by individuals that are members of the Republican party. That goes back months now. And the AP is reporting today that there is an alternative? I know that Paul Ryan had meetings in August. http://www.house.gov/ryan/healthcare/index.htm

LOL! Completely agreed. Even though they are very different.

Amendments aren't law. Law has to be established through the process of a bill, etc. And laws don't always follow the US Constitution.

One might want to look into that three quarters of the states did not ratify the amendment per the requirements of the US Constitution.

So, your premise is that one should take precautions for those that don't take precautions against their own risk? Can one state that everyone that gets exposed gets infected?

That's like saying, "Admitting to a crime does not produce evidence against you, the absence of admitting does."

How about the Second Amendment for the United States? Not for "society" but as the guarantee for the individual. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Ghandi "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Thomas Jefferson Why should you be able to bargain my rights to self protection with arms?

Thanks, Sophia! That helps me with a direction.

My experience on this follows with that idea. But do you have some data on that?

You make such an excellent point. I admit that I was pretty young during that Swine Flu period. I remember my mom, a nurse, and grandma had talks about it, but other than that I only remember they hype and Johnny Carson making jokes about it. Back on point, why hasn't any actual journalist taken this up? Or am I just missing them? There must be some rational explaination even if it is "nobody knows".

Can mean... It can also mean that you get a better job, build a better house, have more of what you value. If one value's the job, it's in one's best interest not to quit. Do you agree? Of course it comes with a "price". One might not be working. That is an independent decision. As for "bargaining unit" you'll have to explain your point more. Do you believe that one should be paid for the work one does as an individual or just get paid more because one has been then longer and never produced more work? So, do you believe employers employ only for a body to occupy a space or are they actually looking for value in employee skills? And if the company decided to fire everyone and make the same product in another town with lower costs to make a similar product, that's capitalism too. They could be more competitive in the market place. That would reduce the costs for transportation for goods for those same people that all got fired. Do you believe that is wrong? Or is everything only about certain kinds of workers in your thinking?

What's your point? It's a voluntary relationship between both. To put it in a different context: Doesn't an employee know the difficulty and oft times possibility of a business shutting down and employing no one, and isn't this a factor that works in their favor in wage negotiations? Works both ways... Are you claiming that is wrong? What is the value of their work? If their work isn't valued at Pullman for what the employees believe that it is, then they should go to other companies that have established a higher value for the work. Or they could produce a business plan, attract investors, produce, and pay themselves the value that they say they should receive.

Well, are they actually opposed to it? Maybe by words, but it is a way to make money "under the table". Ever wonder why some politicians are incredibly wealthy while doing a job that pays a relatively small amount...or are willing even to spend wild amounts of their own money above what they would make in that position? When in office, they know a lot of specialized information or even generate the regulations that will affect outcomes.

Exactly. It's just a philosophy that is destined to fail. More Cloward-Pliven Strategy that generates ridiculous demands that will fail and generate more crisis.

There are a lot of things that can negatively affect unit cohesion. Not doing one's job is one. In regular life, it's hard enough to get along well with everyone one works with. Units are placed together without the freedom of choice in the regular work market place. Personally, I believe that don't ask, don't tell is unreasonable. Whether one is open or not about something still allows for the opportunity of individuals to make their conclusions, rational or not. I don't see where the policy changes anything necessarily.

Certainly. One should. That's the end of a gun. That's an act of force.

Exactly the point I wanted established from my question. Organizations don't have intent. However, the recognition of colors and things like that can be done with the intent of confusion. Some wear "colors" to generate a "guess" that someone is part of something they are not. That can be protection on its own.

Why would they not want to purchase them legally if possible?

So, an individual only has the intent of an "organization"? What if the individual is trying to protect themselves in getting out of said organization? What intent are you trying to produce for an individual in your example? I could "produce" the intent that the individual was the victim of a carjacking or abduction and is looking for protection? What is yours?

A "carry" permit is usually reference to a Concealed Carry Permit, which is available in 48 US states with one going through a state's process. Might be specific training, applications, etc.

Not always. Depends upon the local laws.

Yeah, that part is a real pain isn't it? LOL! On the Christian side, I've heard many claim that the US is a Christian country, but I fail to recognize where Jesus is mentioned in the founding documents, etc. Maybe someone has some understanding of the context of Creator. Jefferson was a deist, and that ideology is based upon reason and nature itself. Someone should more on that than I. Am I off base? Hence, Jefferson placed it there to cover a lot of bases from those that were religious to those that were more based in reason and/or nature?

Did not read the book. Was a bit disappointed with the movie's characters.

Training is one thing. Equipment is another. Not so good vs better. Or failure of the weapon... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uB_YWScuUc How about volume of the opposition? Or just accidents? The best trained soldier with a stick against 400 poorly trained soldiers with blowguns, well, my money is on the 400. Following the training theory, only low ranking, low skill soldiers would die, but there are battlefield deaths of NCO's and officers. It's a little more complicated in reality.