HR and Vacation
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Ah yeah, sure. So you mean this shouldn't be even happening, should it?
A Constitutional Amendment would make flag descreation illegal. That's the way Amendments work, they change the law. There is nothing special about this. It's not likely to pass and I certainly don't support it, nor do I think it is consistent with the values of a free country, but that doesn't mean flag burning isn't protected speech under the current Constitution.
@danixdefcon5 said:
Or the whole "flag in the street" thing in Atlanta...
This has nothing to do with free speech. The flag was painted on public property. Nobody can stop you from painting a flag on your own rock, but you can't deface public property no matter what you are saying. This seems pretty straightforward. Personally, I think a lot of people involved were assholes for making a big deal about it. Anyone who would complain about something like that is a dick, plain and simple. However, they are also legally right that one cannot deface public property. End of discussion.
Are you seriously wanting to look like a dumbass here by throwing your lot in with morons like OzPeter? You live in Mexico, for fuck's sake. You should know more about the country directly north of you. It's not like your fellow citizens are flooding across our border so they can live in the land of poverty and oppression. That's not meant to turn this into some kind immigration debate, I'm just making the point that you should know better from personal experience that these ignoramuses are spouting bullshit.
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
So you mean this shouldn't be even happening, should it?
You mean democratic process shouldn't be happening?
@danixdefcon5 said:
Or the whole "flag in the street" thing in Atlanta...
And they are asking them to take it down... No one has been arrested or beaten by the police or anything.
What is your point here?
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
@tster said:
Ah yeah, sure. So you mean this shouldn't be even happening, should it?you're kind of a dumbass. The constitution has successfuly defended people burning our own flag. I don't think it's going to fail to protect people dancing in the street. Here's the text:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Actually since that is a proposed amendment to the constitution, it would actually make it illegal, since amendments to the Constitution have precedence over the Constitution itself and all Amendments that came before it. However, the likelyhood of that particular amendment being ratified is extremely low, so I don't see what the problem is. I could propose an amendment to make posting stupid shit on this forum illegal, but that wouldn't limit anyone's freedom here until after it becomes ratified. So the answer is, it doesn't matter if that kind of thing is happening since talking about a proposed amendment does not limit any freedoms.
@danixdefcon5 said:
uhhhhhhh. Last time I checked, freedom doesn't mean that you can harm other people or their property. This is just a case of defacement of public property, something that should not (and is not) a freedom since it effects the property rights of other people.
-
For the first time in ages i actually tend to agree. Stupid disputes and stupid law propositions (or otherwise) get made everyday all over the world. The important thing is that these things never get passed, and only hit a few news outlets before fading away.
Just the other day i was actually watching a documentary about 'staphorst' which is a deeply religious municipality in the netherlands. In the span of only a few few months that where shown in the documentary, the local council tried to outlaw all swearing which contain christian references ('god damnit' and the likes), tried to ban a performance of a dutch artist, and made lots of statements that showed they didn't really grasp the separation of church and state. Happily the council got overruled on each and every account by the mayor and over-arching government entities.
However it illustrates perfectly that random news snippets don't and can't represent the over-arching ideals of a country. From the above snippet some could undoubtedly state that the dutch must be uptight christian zealots, while in stark contrast the netherlands actually have been tolerant about other cultures and religions since the foundation of the country.
The same can be said about the usa. They also have a bible belt that tries to pass ridiculous laws, but in the end those laws won't get passed or will certainly get ignored or reversed if they are not in line with the over-arching ideals of the country.
Now as some of you might know i'm not the biggest fan of how things are done in the us, but saying they are less free then other countries is simply ridiculous, just like most western nations freedom is a important part of the american ideals.
-
@wooter said:
as my wife puts it "how can you talk about free will or free choice if the only job openings for employment resource specialists include a maximum of 10 paid holidays, and a maximum of 5 sick days?".
Apparently your wife suffers from the same misconceptions as you then.
I work at a job where I [i]started[/i] with 13 days paid vacation, 13 days paid sick time, 12 paid holidays, and 5 paid personal days (as much as 43 days if I have to use the sick time). Every year, I earn an additional day of paid vacation, until I reach 20 days (4 weeks) per year; I stay at 4 weeks until I've been here 20 years, and then start to accrue 5 extra days per year. So that's slightly more than your wife's "maximum of 10 paid holidays, and a maximum of 5 sick days", don't you think?
I'd suggest that both you and your wife get a clue about the subject you're going to be speaking on [i]before[/i] you start speaking instead of after the fact. :-)
-
@OzPeter said:
Of course some Americans finding dancing scary and banning that would never happen. Nah never could.
You can't seem to get past this antiquated law, which might have been put on the books 200 years ago, can you? Never mind that it probably has [i]never[/i] even been enforced in 199 of those years, and just stays there because no one cares enough to have it removed from the books.
It's kinda like the laws in Australia that make it illegal in most parts of the Outback to have sex with your livestock; just because a law is on the books doesn't mean that they're obeyed, or enforced when they're broken.
-
@KenW said:
I work at a job where I started with 13 days paid vacation, 13 days paid sick time, 12 paid holidays, and 5 paid personal days (as much as 43 days if I have to use the sick time). Every year, I earn an additional day of paid vacation, until I reach 20 days (4 weeks) per year; I stay at 4 weeks until I've been here 20 years, and then start to accrue 5 extra days per year. So that's slightly more than your wife's "maximum of 10 paid holidays, and a maximum of 5 sick days", don't you think?
Don't make the mistake to extrapolate your situation to the rest of the world.
@KenW said:
I'd suggest that both you and your wife get a clue about the subject you're going to be speaking on before you start speaking instead of after the fact. :-)
Oh, working as an employment resources specialist she has enough clue.
On another note: what is your plan if you fall ill for more than three months?
-
@wooter said:
On another note: what is your plan if you fall ill for more than three months?
Attempt to not die?
What are you trying to say? My insurance will pay for this, and then I will go back to work.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
What are you trying to say? My insurance will pay for this, and then I will go back to work.
He's not trying to say anything, he is enquiring as to the type of cover you have if you cannot return to work.
What if you cannot return to work? What is the safety net if for example, (and god forbid) you were hit by a bus, were in traction then rehab for two years? How would you continue to pay your mortgage, send the kids to school, run four cars, pay bills etc?
-
@matterific said:
What if you cannot return to work? What is the safety net if for example, (and god forbid) you were hit by a bus, were in traction then rehab for two years? How would you continue to pay your mortgage, send the kids to school, run four cars, pay bills etc?
I answered this.
What would you do?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I answered this.
What would you do?No, you didn't answer the question, you said "I will go back to work" My question was if you can't go back to work. I know it's a tough one but do you get the subtle difference?
What would I do? If it was a car accident, the Transport Accident Commission would pay me compensation, if it was work related, an statutory authority called Work Cover would pay me compensation. If neither- say a stroke, heart attack, if you don't have insurance you're pretty boned. Though Centerlink will pay you sickness benefits and hospital bills, but that's a minimum.
But the point is there is a safety net. It stops society from turning into a shit hole.
-
@matterific said:
But the point is there is a safety net. It stops society from turning into a shit hole.
Right, and my point is that we have the same thing in America.
You act like there are people laying all over our country dying because no one takes care of them...
So again I ask, what is your point?
-
People are laying all over your country because no one takes care of them. Parts of the US resembles the third world.
The simple fact is that as soon as the profit motive is introduced into care, people who cannot afford to pay get shit quality. This is why the US still has government funded schools- otherwise the US would be full of millions more ignorant hicks than there already are.
A report releasaed the other day comparing childcare quality in OECD countries rated the US as last - it's late but you can google for it. There is no govenment funded childcare, and only 8% of childcare can be classed as quality. The childcare that is available is far more expensive than any other country in the OECD.
The public health system in the US is a disaster, that's why it is building as an election issue. The poor simply fall through the cracks and end up living (and dying) on the streets. You cannot argue that the system of for-profit human care is superior to a universal available government funded one - the figures are not on your side.
-
@matterific said:
People are laying all over your country because no one takes care of them. Parts of the US resembles the third world.
WTF are you talking about? I have been all over the US, and I have never seen what you are describing. Even our poorest members of society are able to get healthcare.
I have been to some pretty goddamn poor areas too... 7 & 8 mile in Detroit stands out.
Yes, it is pretty goddamned poor, but they can still get healthcare, they are not sitting there dying (well some are, but that is self induced through crack and/or booze usually).
But yeah, let's all believe the ignorant European talking out of his ass, and not the American who has been all over and has never seen evidence of the garbage you are spouting.
@matterific said:
the US would be full of millions more ignorant hicks than there already are.
The only 'ignorant hicks' I have seen lately are the Europeans spouting nonsense on this forum. They have greatly reduced my opinion of Europeans, sadly. I like the places I have seen in Europe. But to know that people can be this brainwashed is sad. Really sad.
@matterific said:
it's late but you can google for it
No, you can. I am not spouting the nonsense that has no evidence.
@matterific said:
There is no govenment funded childcare, and only 8% of childcare can be classed as quality.
More proof you know nothing of what you are talking about. Again, I live here, and this is just garbage.
@matterific said:
The public health system in the US is a disaster
Oh really? You keep saying this, but you lack any kind of proof.
@matterific said:
The poor simply fall through the cracks and end up living (and dying) on the streets.
Wow, what fucking TV shows are you watching? Seriously, this doesn't happen. You can be poor and homeless and walk into a hospital and still get cared for. They cannot turn you away if you have a critical problem (and are not just looking for a bed to sleep in).
@matterific said:
the figures are not on your side.
What figures are you referring to? The number of brainwashed europeans telling us what our country is like?
Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap you are spewing. You sound like a goddamn fool.
-
@wooter said:
Don't make the mistake to extrapolate your situation to the rest of the world.
I didn't. You (and your wife, according to you) did.
@wooter said:
Oh, working as an employment resources specialist she has enough clue.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. That's like saying that the guy who stocks produce at the local supermarket is an expert farmer.
@wooter said:
what is your plan if you fall ill for more than three months?
Let the combination of my savings, State Disability Insurance, and Long Term Care Insurance work as they're supposed to?
-
@OzPeter said:
It astounded me a few years ago that there were parts of SW VA that still had laws on the books against dancing in public. So it is hard to reconcile the US political freedom with the huge number of laws enacted to ensure you maintain the "correct" societal behaviour.
Many places still have laws "on the books" that require a flag man walk in front of a motor vehicle. Every locale in the world has these stupid laws because governments are stupid and corrupt.
-
MSP your arguments seems to be more to do with patriotism than fact and now I understand why- It's very simple
Here's a Wiki article, I know it's wikipedia, but the references are well sited, so it's pretty accurate. Scroll down to the bit where is reads "The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system"
QED & STFU
-
Whoops, I meant cited, not sited.
I apologise, my English is inelegant.
-
@matterific said:
MSP your arguments seems to be more to do with patriotism than fact and now I understand why- It's very simple
It's not about patriatism, it's about world view. Republicans believe in rugged individualism, and paying your own way. They believe that you are in charge of taking care of yourself, and that you shouldn't be forced to take care of others that are not as smart and don't plan as well as you do. Democrats believe that we should help each other and that the responsibility to take care of a person lies with society as a whole, and not with that person. If that world view describes you then you probably like socialist health care. Since MPS, Morb and myself think that I am the only one responsible for me, and that other people are responsible for themselves, we like private health care.
@matterific said:
Here's a Wiki article, I know it's wikipedia, but the references are well sited, so it's pretty accurate. Scroll down to the bit where is reads "The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system"
What exactly does this prove? It tells me that the USA doesn't have socialist health care. I already knew that, so I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that article.
@matterific said:
QED & STFU
There was no question, and if there was one you failed to answer it so I guess it wasn't that easy. Also, it's kind of stupid to get into a political argument and then finish your post with "STFU." It shows a lack of intellectual curiosity and acceptance. You should spend more time posting actual arguments than you do worthless demands for us to stop posting.
-
@matterific said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
What are you trying to say? My insurance will pay for this, and then I will go back to work.
He's not trying to say anything, he is enquiring as to the type of cover you have if you cannot return to work.
What if you cannot return to work? What is the safety net if for example, (and god forbid) you were hit by a bus, were in traction then rehab for two years? How would you continue to pay your mortgage, send the kids to school, run four cars, pay bills etc?
Like he said, his insurence will pay for this. We have this thing called long term care insurence that is made for this exact thing. I own it, and other people that plan and hedge their future do to. Also, in cases like that, families have historically been a great place to turn for help.
-
@tster said:
Since MPS, Morb and myself think that I am the only one responsible for me, and that other people are responsible for themselves, we like private health care.
So why do buy a health insurance at all? You might never be ill and pay for stupid other people (customers of the same insurance company) who become ill because they don't care for their health. Or you might fall very ill on day 3 and have those other people pay for you. Insurances are opt-in socialism.
-
Republicans believe in rugged individualism
Not just individualism, but rugged individualism.
Mmmmmm rugged, sounds erotic
-
Now that confuses me... Why do republicans who believe in rugged individualism, feel the need to get involved in anyone's affairs? Why are there laws banning tits on national television? Why are the seven dirty words not allowed? And why do republicans feel the need to get involved in, let's say... Iraq?
If you're all for individualism, stay out of someone elses business!
-
@wooter said:
Now that confuses me... Why do republicans who believe in rugged individualism, feel the need to get involved in anyone's affairs? Why are there laws banning tits on national television? Why are the seven dirty words not allowed? And why do republicans feel the need to get involved in, let's say... Iraq?
If you're all for individualism, stay out of someone elses business!
You're not very bright, are you?
For Americans, the upbringing of their children is very important: they want them to be of decent personality and to achieve more in the life than what they did. Of course, this is something important for us Europeans too, but for Americans, that's something really, really important. Hence the ban on nudity and profanity in general public media.
Also, Americans have a different approach to government: they prefer the government staying out of their business, but realize that one of the government's task is to protect general American business and interest elsewhere in the world. The majority of the American voters, or at least their democratically elected representatives thought that attacking Iraq is in the general interest of America.
Please note that I would not like to suggest in any way in this post that I agree with these American policies, neither my disagreement. I just wanted to enlighten you a little bit about American culture, since you obviously lack this knowledge.
-
@DrJokepu said:
Hence the ban on nudity and profanity in general public media.
Still a bit hard to understand, since about the first thing most humans see in their life are tits. It's hard to believe that children's personality is damaged by tits on tv. Is there any scientify proof for that or is this just religious die-hards taking over?
-
@ammoQ said:
@tster said:
Since MPS, Morb and myself think that I am the only one responsible for me, and that other people are responsible for themselves, we like private health care.
So why do buy a health insurance at all? You might never be ill and pay for stupid other people (customers of the same insurance company) who become ill because they don't care for their health. Or you might fall very ill on day 3 and have those other people pay for you. Insurances are opt-in socialism.
A couple points:
1. I pay less for insurence if I am healthy. I pay more if I am unhealthy. With socialized medicine, I pay more when I make a lot of money, and I pay less when I make less money. I would rather my health care costs be dictated by my level of health and not the thickness of my wallet.
2. Insurence is optional. If I want to take a risk and not have insurence, then that is up to me. With socialized medicine, my options are either a) pay for it, or b) go to jail. I don't like people telling me to give them money or I will go to jail.
3. If you try to abuse insurence and go to the doctor every time you have a cough you will end up paying lots of money. If you abuse socialized medicine and go to the doctor every time you have a cough then I don't know what would happen, but it certainly wouldn't be you paying more money. You might just get turned down for service or something.
4. With private health care, if I want the very best health care and am willing to pay for it, I am entitled to do that. With socialized health care you might be able to do that as well, but at the same time you will continue to pay for the shitty health care. So if you do go to private doctors or whatever, you get to pay for the private health care AND the socialized health care. I'de rather just pay for one.
-
@ammoQ said:
So why do buy a health insurance at all?
It's a risk management tool. Insurance is quite a wonderful invention of capitalism.
@ammoQ said:
You might never be ill and pay for stupid other people (customers of the same insurance company) who become ill because they don't care for their health.
True, but that's why rates are set according to the risk factors you are attempt to abate.
@ammoQ said:
Insurances are opt-in socialism.
Bullshit. Insurance has existed long before Socialism. Socialism is economic controls you cannot opt out of. Personally, I think when you force someone to do your bidding at gunpoint it is unethical, even if you think you are doing them a favor. And that is precisely what Socialism does. You cannot opt-out of the system or you will be financially penalized. If you refuse to pay the taxes or fines levied against you, you will go to jail and if you resist going to jail you will be restrained with violent force. If you resist the violent force you will be killed. Unchecked democracy is tyranny of the majority.
-
@wooter said:
Now that confuses me... Why do republicans who believe in rugged individualism, feel the need to get involved in anyone's affairs? Why are there laws banning tits on national television? Why are the seven dirty words not allowed? And why do republicans feel the need to get involved in, let's say... Iraq?
If you're all for individualism, stay out of someone elses business!
This is all completely off-topic. We're not discussing these other laws or actions here, we are discussing Communist measures like mandatory vacation time and universal healthcare. This is an example of an actual ad hominem because instead of providing any support for your claims you are just arguing against other beliefs or actions that have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. The number of logical fallacies committed by Europeans in this thread is astonishing.
