have had our property on the market with them for 17 weeks,we have decided to move on as having no joy with them,told that we need to put our withdrawal in writing giving them 2 weeks notice,we went in to the shop to hand over our written withdrawal only to be told we now have to pay 拢200 withdrawal fees,and when we said we were under impression that it is a no sell no fee,we were told we should have read the contract more carefully,we said we saw that on the contract about a 拢200 fee,but when we queried it,we were told to just ignore that as that only comes in to play if we withdraw before the 16 week term,which we were not doing,the girl then said,,not my prob when we told her,you should not have signed the contract then,,has anyone else had these kind of dealings with them,,are they right to ask for money like this /
Answers:
they sound like a right rip off
Hey, didn't your mum tell you about estate agents. Go online in future.
If the contract says there is a withdrawal fee, there's not much you can do.
Unless it stipulates that the fee will be waived (or void) after 16 weeks, it will apply until the contract ends.
Never, ever 'just ignore' anything in any contract. If you aren't happy with it, either get it properly amended or refuse to sign.
Don't sign to any terms unless you're willing to abide by them.
It is hard to prove oral misrepresentations like this, but I see from the website of these people that there are various bodies you can complain to if they are guilty of sharp practice. http://frankhill.com/
In practice, I wonder whether they would go so far as to pursue you for 拢200?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Foxtons estate agents?
I have seen rather over the top ads showing extreme sports that obviously have no bearing on house selling but do they really pay 拢22,000 on the first year and 拢50,000 in the second year. Is this too good to be true?
Answers:
They make you work 24/7. no time off, they are slavedrivers, avoid.
they were in a undercover documentary last year..it showed just how unethical the work was and just how target driven the employees were...dont go there unless u are selfish, have no morals and love to lie and cheat people.
keep well away, Foxtons are full of cr*p, don't go there
I remember seeing a documentary on estate agents once. The undercover journo got a job with them and they broke just about every regulation and law they could. If I recollect correctly they also paid mostly on commission with a low basic wage so check if that's the correct salary or some sort of projected earnings crap. They seem a bit dodgy to me.
They seem to love targetting the ultra-naive, newly graduated idiots of this country. As do most sales jobs these days.
I'm surprised more uni graduates don't aspire to more.
People are too concerned by money these days and basically overlook their dreams for an alleged fast buck that never arrives.
Foxtons sound like weapons-grade c*nts. Clearly somewhere which has fast staff-turnover, otherwise, why are the constantly advertising jobs?
If it sounds too good to be true, it is. The sales jobs (like the ones aimed at students) are almost always bullsh!t. Look up "recruitment consultant" and you'll see what I mean. Basically, you'll work your as$ off, with little time for yourself making some overweight c*nt a millionaire - so while he is sat on his yacht in the mediterranean, you are still sat in London rush hour trying to lie away your next "deal"...
The only jobs where you are practically guaranteed lots of money are traders or investment bankers. Sales jobs are possible, but then we go back to the working your as$ off for 50 grand a year while mr fat cat twat does nothing and becomes a millionaire - so yes, salesmen are mugs!
Either follow your dreams or get into a "real" industry where you can earn "real" money - like SAP programming. There is no quick or easy way to make money and practically 99% of job advertisements which "postulate" such huge salaries in such a short space of time are either lying or are fraudsters.
Avoid. They are the most mindless clique it is my misfortune to have to deal with. They are brainless beyond compare. They have there own little cult of personality within the firm, and actually think that people outisde give a damn!
Truely, seriously, avoid them like the proverbial plague, lest you want to become like that
Answers:
They make you work 24/7. no time off, they are slavedrivers, avoid.
they were in a undercover documentary last year..it showed just how unethical the work was and just how target driven the employees were...dont go there unless u are selfish, have no morals and love to lie and cheat people.
keep well away, Foxtons are full of cr*p, don't go there
I remember seeing a documentary on estate agents once. The undercover journo got a job with them and they broke just about every regulation and law they could. If I recollect correctly they also paid mostly on commission with a low basic wage so check if that's the correct salary or some sort of projected earnings crap. They seem a bit dodgy to me.
They seem to love targetting the ultra-naive, newly graduated idiots of this country. As do most sales jobs these days.
I'm surprised more uni graduates don't aspire to more.
People are too concerned by money these days and basically overlook their dreams for an alleged fast buck that never arrives.
Foxtons sound like weapons-grade c*nts. Clearly somewhere which has fast staff-turnover, otherwise, why are the constantly advertising jobs?
If it sounds too good to be true, it is. The sales jobs (like the ones aimed at students) are almost always bullsh!t. Look up "recruitment consultant" and you'll see what I mean. Basically, you'll work your as$ off, with little time for yourself making some overweight c*nt a millionaire - so while he is sat on his yacht in the mediterranean, you are still sat in London rush hour trying to lie away your next "deal"...
The only jobs where you are practically guaranteed lots of money are traders or investment bankers. Sales jobs are possible, but then we go back to the working your as$ off for 50 grand a year while mr fat cat twat does nothing and becomes a millionaire - so yes, salesmen are mugs!
Either follow your dreams or get into a "real" industry where you can earn "real" money - like SAP programming. There is no quick or easy way to make money and practically 99% of job advertisements which "postulate" such huge salaries in such a short space of time are either lying or are fraudsters.
Avoid. They are the most mindless clique it is my misfortune to have to deal with. They are brainless beyond compare. They have there own little cult of personality within the firm, and actually think that people outisde give a damn!
Truely, seriously, avoid them like the proverbial plague, lest you want to become like that
Fox News, Man getting sentenced for 12th illegal driving conviction/ Has no arms and only one leg....?
What should the penalty be, facing jail time and says he won't do it again. My main concern is not only dangerous but how does he start the car......
Answers:
Actually, that is a true story... unlike most of the propaganda and opinion that FOX NOISE puts out.
Although I am sorry for his handicap, the thought of meeting him on a road, driving too fast and using his foot to drove... does bother me.
What I would like to know is how he managed to keep his drivers license!
A GPS monitoring bracelet on his one leg.
Why do you watch the "Inquirer" of news?
Answers:
Actually, that is a true story... unlike most of the propaganda and opinion that FOX NOISE puts out.
Although I am sorry for his handicap, the thought of meeting him on a road, driving too fast and using his foot to drove... does bother me.
What I would like to know is how he managed to keep his drivers license!
A GPS monitoring bracelet on his one leg.
Why do you watch the "Inquirer" of news?
Fourth Amendent issue?
If a case involves a fourth amendment issue, what of the following would be the issue in the case?
right to counsel.
doctor-patient privliage
fraud
a search for a seizure
Answers:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/...
Search and seizure
right to counsel.
doctor-patient privliage
fraud
a search for a seizure
Answers:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/...
Search and seizure
Former friend filed false police report against me.?
I have a former friend who is intent on getting me into trouble because she's upset that I am friends with her ex %26 his friends who no longer talk to her. It's very childish but her lies have escalated along with her bizarre behavior. I just recently came home to a restraining order slid under my door that was delivered by an CT out of state officer (it states she couldn't find a sheriff to deliver it). She claims I am stalking her %26 that she %26 her neighbor have seen my car around her apt. numerous times. I live in NYC %26 don't even own a car! She lives in New Haven, CT %26 I've only been there when passing thru on the train to visit family in RI. She is filing false reports on me in CT %26 now I have to go to court because of it. I went to the NYPD %26 explained everything but all she received was a phone call from them %26 I can't file a restraining order unless she's arrested. She is filing false reports %26 if anyone could advise me on the best way to deal with this, it'd be appreciated.
Answers:
A restraining order goes both ways. You can't file one against her because one already exists between you. Unless she has proof it's your word against hers. The cops deal with domestic disputes all the time and know that there's two sides to every story. Don't worry about it, really. Just have confidence that you're correct and she has some mental issues. Oh, and point out that you don't have a car to them. :)
I guess your next stop should be a lawyer's office. Do the court thing she is pressing on you. Go armed with a good attorney and the facts. Little facts like you don't own a car and the train passes through New Haven but you don't get off are important. Tell the judge. Now that it is going to court, if you can show that the reports are her harassing you she is the one who will be in trouble. It is against the law to file a false police report. You should then be able to get a restraining order against her. She may even be arrested for filing the false reports.
One other thing, if it keeps up file a civil suit against her to recover your expenses in dealing with her false reports. Include things like lost pay, travel expenses and don't forget your lawyer's fees.
My suggeston, when you go to court be calm. Don't go off screaming and yelling at her, just explain to the judge the situation. that you aren't sure why you have this restraining order b/c you don't have a car blah blah, but you think that your friend is angry at you fro being friends with your ex. You can tell him that you'll gladly stay away from this ex-friend, but you don't want a restraining order to go on your record for something that you'v never done to her... like stalking...
Answers:
A restraining order goes both ways. You can't file one against her because one already exists between you. Unless she has proof it's your word against hers. The cops deal with domestic disputes all the time and know that there's two sides to every story. Don't worry about it, really. Just have confidence that you're correct and she has some mental issues. Oh, and point out that you don't have a car to them. :)
I guess your next stop should be a lawyer's office. Do the court thing she is pressing on you. Go armed with a good attorney and the facts. Little facts like you don't own a car and the train passes through New Haven but you don't get off are important. Tell the judge. Now that it is going to court, if you can show that the reports are her harassing you she is the one who will be in trouble. It is against the law to file a false police report. You should then be able to get a restraining order against her. She may even be arrested for filing the false reports.
One other thing, if it keeps up file a civil suit against her to recover your expenses in dealing with her false reports. Include things like lost pay, travel expenses and don't forget your lawyer's fees.
My suggeston, when you go to court be calm. Don't go off screaming and yelling at her, just explain to the judge the situation. that you aren't sure why you have this restraining order b/c you don't have a car blah blah, but you think that your friend is angry at you fro being friends with your ex. You can tell him that you'll gladly stay away from this ex-friend, but you don't want a restraining order to go on your record for something that you'v never done to her... like stalking...
Forced to use a National Rate Number (UK)?
My domain hosting company is holding me over a barrel by demanding that I call them on an 0870 number to move my account somewhere else. Isn't there anything in law to ensure that other lines of communication are available?
Answers:
There is nothing in law to stop a company using national rate numbers.
You could try looking on this site:
http://www.saynoto0870.com/
Which may list a standard telephone number, as all 0870 numbers have to have a standard number to operate.
You said your Domain Hosting Company, I assume they are only hosting from that line, therefore if you find your letter from Nominet confirming your domain name then there should be a security section on that, this will allow you to transfer your domain name into another company like BT etc without the need to contact your old Domain Hosting Company. Any domain can be moved online as long as you have served your minimum period. If you go to the BT website it even asks you if you want to transfer a domain name in, its that simple.
However if you do not have the letter from Nominet then I am not sure what the procedure would be, I would certainly check out the nominet website before using premium rate numbers, all the best ...%26lt;GB%26gt;
No it`s perfectly legal for them to use national rate lines, they will just say they have more than one UK office and they will route the call to the first available line.
My company does it even though i think it`s immoral. We are told to say they can put their enquiry in writing or get in touch via email.
I think a lot of letters to watchdog is the only way to go - who wants to be shamed by Nicky Campbell.
Answers:
There is nothing in law to stop a company using national rate numbers.
You could try looking on this site:
http://www.saynoto0870.com/
Which may list a standard telephone number, as all 0870 numbers have to have a standard number to operate.
You said your Domain Hosting Company, I assume they are only hosting from that line, therefore if you find your letter from Nominet confirming your domain name then there should be a security section on that, this will allow you to transfer your domain name into another company like BT etc without the need to contact your old Domain Hosting Company. Any domain can be moved online as long as you have served your minimum period. If you go to the BT website it even asks you if you want to transfer a domain name in, its that simple.
However if you do not have the letter from Nominet then I am not sure what the procedure would be, I would certainly check out the nominet website before using premium rate numbers, all the best ...%26lt;GB%26gt;
No it`s perfectly legal for them to use national rate lines, they will just say they have more than one UK office and they will route the call to the first available line.
My company does it even though i think it`s immoral. We are told to say they can put their enquiry in writing or get in touch via email.
I think a lot of letters to watchdog is the only way to go - who wants to be shamed by Nicky Campbell.
For you smokers out there...?
How old were you when you started smoking?
And what do you think of underage smoking?
Answers:
started at 15, smoked until age 26. at the time of quitting, i was easily smoking 2 packs a day, under a tremendous amount of stress/depression, and had been buying cigarettes by the carton for a few years. still have some mad cravings, sometimes every day for consecutive days. cigarettes are the freaking devil, especially for someone who comes from a family of addicts/smokers.
there are some interesting studies i have read recently about people's dispositions for getting hooked on cigarettes/smoking. some people can remain casual smokers for years, never exceeding 4 a day. others of us... i didn't stand a chance, in my humble opinion. i think genetically some folks are much more likely to get hooked than others.
among other factors that increase likelihood, sure.
what other product - when used as instructed - results in sickness and death? the govt makes a pretty penny *times trillions - over time on tabacco and alcohol. profit means it doesnt matter how lethal something is. go figure.
i live right next to a town that has outlawed smoking cigs. EVERYWHERE! including in your own bedroom of your own apartment (rented). every street, every single place anywhere in the city except on your own porch or in your own house (*that you own). think about it.
i am against smokers being treated like lepers. seriously. i defend someone's right to smoke. within reason. demonizing smokers isn't helpful to individuals or society.
peace.
smoking what?...oh cigs 16 years old...I'm 21 now if that helps...now i don't smoke anything :) and its great
Cigarettes are not good but people are not getting killed over it....not like drugs anyways....i feel like kids are going to get them no matter what if they want them..to tell you the truth drugs were easier to get than Cigarettes or beer when i was under age
would you rather your kids drinking and smoking or doing drugs "not just weed"??? maybe they should make the age younger
19 for me. Under age smoking is on the rise and I disagree totally, but if they want to do it they will somehow or another. You can't be with your kid's 24-7 when they are 17,18,19. It's a choice.
I was fifteen. Started and stopped a few times. I think that underage smoking is deadly but unless peer pressure can somehow be elminated entirely it's not going to stop.
I never smoked. I was never sick before either. Then I moved in with a boyfriend who did smoke and I didnt mind him smoking. After a year a got really sick developed asthma that might have been there before but I never had symptons. I had a cold all the time. Now we are not together and I am back to smoke free. I still have the asthma problems and a chronic cough that I cant get rid of for longer then a few months at a time. I honestly believe that it was caused by his smoking.
Thirteen years old. It was 1967 and a pack of cigarettes cost 45 cents. That same pack costs over $9.00 now! Underage smoking? Hell that's an oxymoron. No one is old enough to smoke.
13. And now still do at 65,- thank you very much.
Added risk? Do the math
They tell you smoking increases you chances of lung cancer by 30%.
What they don't tell you is that your chance
without it is ~4.5%.
Do the math .3 x .045 = .135, (1.35%).
Hell! I take bigger chances than that crossing the street, and enjoy it less.
And what do you think of underage smoking?
Answers:
started at 15, smoked until age 26. at the time of quitting, i was easily smoking 2 packs a day, under a tremendous amount of stress/depression, and had been buying cigarettes by the carton for a few years. still have some mad cravings, sometimes every day for consecutive days. cigarettes are the freaking devil, especially for someone who comes from a family of addicts/smokers.
there are some interesting studies i have read recently about people's dispositions for getting hooked on cigarettes/smoking. some people can remain casual smokers for years, never exceeding 4 a day. others of us... i didn't stand a chance, in my humble opinion. i think genetically some folks are much more likely to get hooked than others.
among other factors that increase likelihood, sure.
what other product - when used as instructed - results in sickness and death? the govt makes a pretty penny *times trillions - over time on tabacco and alcohol. profit means it doesnt matter how lethal something is. go figure.
i live right next to a town that has outlawed smoking cigs. EVERYWHERE! including in your own bedroom of your own apartment (rented). every street, every single place anywhere in the city except on your own porch or in your own house (*that you own). think about it.
i am against smokers being treated like lepers. seriously. i defend someone's right to smoke. within reason. demonizing smokers isn't helpful to individuals or society.
peace.
smoking what?...oh cigs 16 years old...I'm 21 now if that helps...now i don't smoke anything :) and its great
Cigarettes are not good but people are not getting killed over it....not like drugs anyways....i feel like kids are going to get them no matter what if they want them..to tell you the truth drugs were easier to get than Cigarettes or beer when i was under age
would you rather your kids drinking and smoking or doing drugs "not just weed"??? maybe they should make the age younger
19 for me. Under age smoking is on the rise and I disagree totally, but if they want to do it they will somehow or another. You can't be with your kid's 24-7 when they are 17,18,19. It's a choice.
I was fifteen. Started and stopped a few times. I think that underage smoking is deadly but unless peer pressure can somehow be elminated entirely it's not going to stop.
I never smoked. I was never sick before either. Then I moved in with a boyfriend who did smoke and I didnt mind him smoking. After a year a got really sick developed asthma that might have been there before but I never had symptons. I had a cold all the time. Now we are not together and I am back to smoke free. I still have the asthma problems and a chronic cough that I cant get rid of for longer then a few months at a time. I honestly believe that it was caused by his smoking.
Thirteen years old. It was 1967 and a pack of cigarettes cost 45 cents. That same pack costs over $9.00 now! Underage smoking? Hell that's an oxymoron. No one is old enough to smoke.
13. And now still do at 65,- thank you very much.
Added risk? Do the math
They tell you smoking increases you chances of lung cancer by 30%.
What they don't tell you is that your chance
without it is ~4.5%.
Do the math .3 x .045 = .135, (1.35%).
Hell! I take bigger chances than that crossing the street, and enjoy it less.
For what possible purpose does "In God we trust" appear on American currency?
Answers:
helps brainwash our society. FEAR GOD. Oh and tithe too
"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War"
People need to learn to Google. %26gt;=(
To assert the monotheistic dominance over America.
It's purely religious advocacy -- saying one particular religious belief is dominant and approved by the US govt.
So the American sheeple will believe the piece of paper they're holding is worth something...
Because the people who wrote it trusted in God.
First place you need to understand we do not have currency any more. If you look on the bills today it says U.S. Note.
The (In God we trust will soon be remove because the leaders would not be bound by the oath.
For the same reason the phrase "under God" appears in the pledge of allegiance: to distinguish us from the communists.
While the motto had frequently appeared on coinage since the Civil War, it was not made the official US Motto until 1956, and it began appearing on paper currency the next year.
Of course, the cynic in me wants to say that the motto replaced the ability to actually redeem the paper notes for silver. That might well be another topic..
Because God is the only reason our country exists and that America is the only country that matters in this world other than Israel. America and Israel rules!( and GOD)
For Those Who Know THE LABOR LAWS!! HELP!!??
ok i was working at a carousel for about 1 month what happend was i called in sick once because i was really sick i called in a day before...but thats not the problem the problem was that out of no where i got tooken off the schedule...now its been 1 month and a half and he hasnt called me or nothing and he never fired me...my cousin said because he could get sued if he did w/out a reason...well i called him today and politly asked for a explanation on whats going on...he said that they just dont need me right now and that the reason he took me off was because he had a problem with me that i had an attitude :] i never even talked to him personally like that only for work or training help how is that so...and he said that i had an attidude when i called in :] never did so he was like "i cant talk to you about this right now ihave to go" in a hurry all of the suuden.he's wrong i know but can i sue him..uneployment?...anything help...peace and love :]
oh yea im a minor...and ha im not givin up i feel as this was discrimanation and he hired 2 new people after me and my friend were no longer on the schedule :]
Answers:
unless you had a signed contract, they can terminate you without cause.
If you live in a "right to work" state, you can do nothing. You can be fired anytime for any reason except race, sex or age. Your boss can come to and say you're ugly and fired.
Unfortunately, if you live in a state like I do (Virginia) an employer can dismiss you for no reason at all. I don't think what he is doing to you is right and I think you should try and go over his head if possible. Unless he owns the company then he has a boss. Minors can't draw unemployment unfortunately so that option isn't available but you can report him to your local labor board.
No hun, its better to count your losses, move on and find a different job. You can't get unemployment because you didn't work there long enough and unless your under a contract (doubtfully) he can cut your hours down to nil.
I would just start looking for another job. Bosses can be jerks, and it sounds like he's a pretty big one. Good luck with everything.
Unless he has publicly discriminated against you, or there is something on paper, he can fire you for the color of your shirt.
You are an "at-will" employee. That means you can be fired, laid off or whatever for no reason. Nothing else matters. Move on.
look for a new job... this one is not feeding you! simple as that. it was not the job for you, accept that and go. you have alot ahead of you, do not get hung up on this stupid job! you are worth much more!
oh yea im a minor...and ha im not givin up i feel as this was discrimanation and he hired 2 new people after me and my friend were no longer on the schedule :]
Answers:
unless you had a signed contract, they can terminate you without cause.
If you live in a "right to work" state, you can do nothing. You can be fired anytime for any reason except race, sex or age. Your boss can come to and say you're ugly and fired.
Unfortunately, if you live in a state like I do (Virginia) an employer can dismiss you for no reason at all. I don't think what he is doing to you is right and I think you should try and go over his head if possible. Unless he owns the company then he has a boss. Minors can't draw unemployment unfortunately so that option isn't available but you can report him to your local labor board.
No hun, its better to count your losses, move on and find a different job. You can't get unemployment because you didn't work there long enough and unless your under a contract (doubtfully) he can cut your hours down to nil.
I would just start looking for another job. Bosses can be jerks, and it sounds like he's a pretty big one. Good luck with everything.
Unless he has publicly discriminated against you, or there is something on paper, he can fire you for the color of your shirt.
You are an "at-will" employee. That means you can be fired, laid off or whatever for no reason. Nothing else matters. Move on.
look for a new job... this one is not feeding you! simple as that. it was not the job for you, accept that and go. you have alot ahead of you, do not get hung up on this stupid job! you are worth much more!
For those who are against universal healthcare?
I recently asked this question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Only one person answered the question, the others were on a rant about taxes. Now, let's try this again. For those of you who are opposed to universal healthcare or universal insurance, who takes care of your elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles. Do they have medicare? How is their insurance? Are any of them on a fixed income? Have any of them been denied medical procedures or medication that might make them more comfortable or prolong their lives?
A lot of the folks who lean to the conservative side ARE intelligent, please try to answer the question WITHOUT a rant on taxes? I'm not asking about increased taxes, I'm asking about the people in your life that you love.
No trolls please.
Answers:
Pink -
Love that name by the way
here is the real deal or issue with universal Heath care
It means change
when you get down to it, 80% pf the folks in this country are covered by some heath care they are generally satisfied with.
These are the folks that pay taxes and also vote
What defeated this in '92 was that it would require change - and the folks that vote did not want to change
The whole problem with universal healthcare is that it doesn't address the reason why people don't have health care.
The cost isn't the reason. The cost is an effect of the reason. The reason is that there simply isn't enough of it for everyone to have all they want.
Universal health care ignores the cause, and treats the symptom, but gauranteeing payment of all medical bills will not produce a single tablet of aspirin, will not create any new nurses, doctors, or hospital beds.
If we want affordable health care, we need more providers. The socialism of the system so far, coupled with unreasonable malpractice insurance costs, has driven providers out of the business, as has our liability claims against drug manufacturers driven over 75% of them out of business in the US in the last fifteen years.
Government involvement is the problem, not the solution.
I am a moderate conservative but I don't have any problem with the idea of Universal Health Care. The real problem, and the reason most conservative really harp on taxes, is that the American people don't want any more. The way the system is set up there is no way to fund Univ Health Care without raising taxes a ton. Germany, for instance, has great healthcare. If you're stressed at work your doctor can send you to a health spa for 6 weeks and you still get paid what your job usually pays you but there tax rate is something near 40 or 50%, last time I check (could be wrong), whereas our tax rates are 10-30% and mostly closer to middle of that. Change has to start with the reworking of the whole healthcare system to make it more economically feasable and less wastefull. If that happens and taxes go up just a little I think a lot more conservative will be up for it. Good Question.
They have insurance. The seniors and the poor are already taken care of. Do you think Universal health care is going to be better? I can tell you that seniors from Canada and all around the world come to the states ever years to get the care they cannot receive with their own system. We could not afford a government run program that would give us the level of care we are receiving now. It would break our backs and destroy our economy.
My parents planned for their old age and did not need any handouts. If people would take reponsibility on themselves, we wouldn't need it. I am planning for it myself. If we would educate people instead of just throwing money at the problem, we would be better off
Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
James Madison also said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Limited government in a constitutional framework, or unlimited government where the constitution is a green light for unlimited power to the party currently in office? I think you see which one we have, and spending on charity was part of the road to it.
The 9th, 10th Amendments reserve all rights not specifically granted to Congress to the States and the people. A state by state system even makes more sense in terms of competing systems, smaller scale leading to less corruption, and staying out of the loaded national debate.
Answering directly:
My grandmother is living with my uncle.
She has Medicare benefits.
Her health insurance is fine.
She is on a fixed income (her savings and retirement plan)
She has not been denied medical care.
This sounds like a research poll rather than an intro to discussion of the merits/problems of universal healthcare.
Universally healthcare to help the people who need it would be nice. The problem is that there is no universal answer. Developing a healthcare like that will be a huge project and will take many, many years.
Many countries have some sort of universal healthcare, but the quality of care tends to diminsh. The quality of care and medical advancement tend to be better in the US because of the capitalist system. Doctors and hospitals make more so they are more motivated to work on these problems. Are there exceptions? Of course.
There isn't a perfect system. If we make the choice to develop a universal healthcare system in the US everyone needs to be aware of the trade offs. We need to deal with facts and not political agendas.
People ranted about taxes because taxes will have to increase in order to sustain a program like this. The right believe that everyone should support themselves and don't believe that they should support people who could support themselves. Most do not have a problem helping the handicapped or elderly who cannot help themselves due to physical limitations.
Good question, but you're not likely to convert anyone. These neo-cons are brainwashed to believe that univeral healthcare has to be paid for at the cost charged now. There are big money interests that want to keep medical care expensive. If the govt could negotiate for prices, it wouldn't have to be so costly. It would also be So much cheaper if people could have access to free preventative care rather than waiting for a crisis and running to the ER. If you cons don't care about the poor, why don't you just use your "pro-life" tactics and put them to sleep? Remember, most of the poor are children, elderly, and single moms whose "baby-daddy" left them.
I think the idea of universal healthcare is detrimental to our country,and here is why. Do you really want the government involved in your healthcare? What makes our country great is the freedom to be ourselves, and not controlled by anyone. If I am sick, I do not want the government to tell me what is best for me, I think the healthcare that I choose should be the one that is best for me. The government is just wanting to take one more freedom away from us if this goes through.
Our current healthcare is not perfect, but it's the best thing for Americans.
It's pretty hard to talk about Universal Healthcare without bringing the financial side into it. It's a pipe-dream without a realistic financial plan. However, I'll try to discuss it a little without bringing up the word 'tax'.
My parents have their own insurance that takes care of their medical expenses. My dad worked for GE for almost 40 years. His parents were both in nursing homes and their own insurance covered the costs.
My parents have an HMO. They make co-pays and have deductables. Both of my parents are on a fixed income and are raising one of their grandchildren (not my kid :-P). They do what it takes to pay for their medical expenses and prescription drugs, just like almost everyone else in their family. They've had some medical problems typical of a couple in their 60's who've worked hard their whole life, and their grandchild has also had medical problems typical of any young kid. It all comes out of their pocket.
Meanwhile, we have one sister on Medicare because she's decided to have 3 kids from 3 different guys, loves to smoke, drink, and party. She could care less about her medical bills. I've seen her throw unopened medical bills directly into the trash.
I'm sure there are some people who need medicare. There are those working their backsides off trying to provide for themselves and their children. Maybe life has thrown them some pretty hard times. I don't have a problem giving them a hand.
However, there are probably just as many like my sister (if not more) who've squandered everything given to them with no care for the consequences.
Where does it say anywhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights that everyone in this country has a right to 'Feel comfortable' or to 'be healthy' or anything even resembling that idea? The Bill of Rights doesn't give a 'Right' to Health or Happiness. It's gives the 'Right' of the PURSUIT of Happiness. That's what's so good about this country. If you work hard and aren't afraid to take a couple chances, you can create your own opportunities.
If I had to, I would spend my last dime for the health of my wife or kids or parents. But I don't think anyone else, including my government, should have to pay for me.
Lawsuits have driven up the cost of medical care in this country. Malpractice insurance is a huge cost to the doctors in the country. Perhaps there should be limits set to the amount of money a person can win in a negligence suit. If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg and you end up with no legs, what is that worth? There should definitely still be recourse for these types of victims.
During the Reagan administration, the length of time required for testing of new medications was drastically reduced. Since that time, there have been many more cases of prescription drug related health problems/deaths for which people are suing. One answer to this would be to increase the testing standards of these medications.
There are many frivolous lawsuits in this country as well. I don't ever remember this type of stupidity going on years ago. The lost pants from the dry cleaners, the infamous hot coffee, etc., should never make it to court. People used to have more sense and would have been actually embarrassed to pursue such greedy, ridiculous lawsuits. Get rich quick schemes should not be encouraged by a judicial system.
I believe there are other ways to address this issue. The insurance companies are driving down the cost of medical care. This avenue should be pursued more agressively even if there is a universal health care program initiated. It should be done through private companies and not be a government bureacracy. I do believe that 46 million people unable to afford health care is totally unacceptable and must be addressed through multiple means.
Your question is the same as asking if Hitler was a good or evil man... and then demanding that nobody say anything about him killing millions and invading his neighbors. It doesn't make sense and it completely distorts any realistic answer.
But to answer your watered down question... yes, I have elderly relatives on Medicare. And I'm not aware of any procedure being denied to them.
Who takes care of your elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles?
You do if you love your family, it may seem harsh but it is not my fault that they did not plan well for retirement nor should i have to pay for there food, housing, or medical treatment. It is about people taking responsibility for them selves and there family.
Do they have medicare?
Medicare was a bad idea.
How is their insurance?
Push the government to put a cap on insurance for people under 18 and over 65.
Are any of them on a fixed income?
Most are if they did not plan for retirement.
Have any of them been denied medical procedures or medication that might make them more comfortable or prolong their lives?
Send a letter to your congressman to make it law that the doctors decides what is needed not your insurance.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Only one person answered the question, the others were on a rant about taxes. Now, let's try this again. For those of you who are opposed to universal healthcare or universal insurance, who takes care of your elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles. Do they have medicare? How is their insurance? Are any of them on a fixed income? Have any of them been denied medical procedures or medication that might make them more comfortable or prolong their lives?
A lot of the folks who lean to the conservative side ARE intelligent, please try to answer the question WITHOUT a rant on taxes? I'm not asking about increased taxes, I'm asking about the people in your life that you love.
No trolls please.
Answers:
Pink -
Love that name by the way
here is the real deal or issue with universal Heath care
It means change
when you get down to it, 80% pf the folks in this country are covered by some heath care they are generally satisfied with.
These are the folks that pay taxes and also vote
What defeated this in '92 was that it would require change - and the folks that vote did not want to change
The whole problem with universal healthcare is that it doesn't address the reason why people don't have health care.
The cost isn't the reason. The cost is an effect of the reason. The reason is that there simply isn't enough of it for everyone to have all they want.
Universal health care ignores the cause, and treats the symptom, but gauranteeing payment of all medical bills will not produce a single tablet of aspirin, will not create any new nurses, doctors, or hospital beds.
If we want affordable health care, we need more providers. The socialism of the system so far, coupled with unreasonable malpractice insurance costs, has driven providers out of the business, as has our liability claims against drug manufacturers driven over 75% of them out of business in the US in the last fifteen years.
Government involvement is the problem, not the solution.
I am a moderate conservative but I don't have any problem with the idea of Universal Health Care. The real problem, and the reason most conservative really harp on taxes, is that the American people don't want any more. The way the system is set up there is no way to fund Univ Health Care without raising taxes a ton. Germany, for instance, has great healthcare. If you're stressed at work your doctor can send you to a health spa for 6 weeks and you still get paid what your job usually pays you but there tax rate is something near 40 or 50%, last time I check (could be wrong), whereas our tax rates are 10-30% and mostly closer to middle of that. Change has to start with the reworking of the whole healthcare system to make it more economically feasable and less wastefull. If that happens and taxes go up just a little I think a lot more conservative will be up for it. Good Question.
They have insurance. The seniors and the poor are already taken care of. Do you think Universal health care is going to be better? I can tell you that seniors from Canada and all around the world come to the states ever years to get the care they cannot receive with their own system. We could not afford a government run program that would give us the level of care we are receiving now. It would break our backs and destroy our economy.
My parents planned for their old age and did not need any handouts. If people would take reponsibility on themselves, we wouldn't need it. I am planning for it myself. If we would educate people instead of just throwing money at the problem, we would be better off
Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
James Madison also said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Limited government in a constitutional framework, or unlimited government where the constitution is a green light for unlimited power to the party currently in office? I think you see which one we have, and spending on charity was part of the road to it.
The 9th, 10th Amendments reserve all rights not specifically granted to Congress to the States and the people. A state by state system even makes more sense in terms of competing systems, smaller scale leading to less corruption, and staying out of the loaded national debate.
Answering directly:
My grandmother is living with my uncle.
She has Medicare benefits.
Her health insurance is fine.
She is on a fixed income (her savings and retirement plan)
She has not been denied medical care.
This sounds like a research poll rather than an intro to discussion of the merits/problems of universal healthcare.
Universally healthcare to help the people who need it would be nice. The problem is that there is no universal answer. Developing a healthcare like that will be a huge project and will take many, many years.
Many countries have some sort of universal healthcare, but the quality of care tends to diminsh. The quality of care and medical advancement tend to be better in the US because of the capitalist system. Doctors and hospitals make more so they are more motivated to work on these problems. Are there exceptions? Of course.
There isn't a perfect system. If we make the choice to develop a universal healthcare system in the US everyone needs to be aware of the trade offs. We need to deal with facts and not political agendas.
People ranted about taxes because taxes will have to increase in order to sustain a program like this. The right believe that everyone should support themselves and don't believe that they should support people who could support themselves. Most do not have a problem helping the handicapped or elderly who cannot help themselves due to physical limitations.
Good question, but you're not likely to convert anyone. These neo-cons are brainwashed to believe that univeral healthcare has to be paid for at the cost charged now. There are big money interests that want to keep medical care expensive. If the govt could negotiate for prices, it wouldn't have to be so costly. It would also be So much cheaper if people could have access to free preventative care rather than waiting for a crisis and running to the ER. If you cons don't care about the poor, why don't you just use your "pro-life" tactics and put them to sleep? Remember, most of the poor are children, elderly, and single moms whose "baby-daddy" left them.
I think the idea of universal healthcare is detrimental to our country,and here is why. Do you really want the government involved in your healthcare? What makes our country great is the freedom to be ourselves, and not controlled by anyone. If I am sick, I do not want the government to tell me what is best for me, I think the healthcare that I choose should be the one that is best for me. The government is just wanting to take one more freedom away from us if this goes through.
Our current healthcare is not perfect, but it's the best thing for Americans.
It's pretty hard to talk about Universal Healthcare without bringing the financial side into it. It's a pipe-dream without a realistic financial plan. However, I'll try to discuss it a little without bringing up the word 'tax'.
My parents have their own insurance that takes care of their medical expenses. My dad worked for GE for almost 40 years. His parents were both in nursing homes and their own insurance covered the costs.
My parents have an HMO. They make co-pays and have deductables. Both of my parents are on a fixed income and are raising one of their grandchildren (not my kid :-P). They do what it takes to pay for their medical expenses and prescription drugs, just like almost everyone else in their family. They've had some medical problems typical of a couple in their 60's who've worked hard their whole life, and their grandchild has also had medical problems typical of any young kid. It all comes out of their pocket.
Meanwhile, we have one sister on Medicare because she's decided to have 3 kids from 3 different guys, loves to smoke, drink, and party. She could care less about her medical bills. I've seen her throw unopened medical bills directly into the trash.
I'm sure there are some people who need medicare. There are those working their backsides off trying to provide for themselves and their children. Maybe life has thrown them some pretty hard times. I don't have a problem giving them a hand.
However, there are probably just as many like my sister (if not more) who've squandered everything given to them with no care for the consequences.
Where does it say anywhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights that everyone in this country has a right to 'Feel comfortable' or to 'be healthy' or anything even resembling that idea? The Bill of Rights doesn't give a 'Right' to Health or Happiness. It's gives the 'Right' of the PURSUIT of Happiness. That's what's so good about this country. If you work hard and aren't afraid to take a couple chances, you can create your own opportunities.
If I had to, I would spend my last dime for the health of my wife or kids or parents. But I don't think anyone else, including my government, should have to pay for me.
Lawsuits have driven up the cost of medical care in this country. Malpractice insurance is a huge cost to the doctors in the country. Perhaps there should be limits set to the amount of money a person can win in a negligence suit. If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg and you end up with no legs, what is that worth? There should definitely still be recourse for these types of victims.
During the Reagan administration, the length of time required for testing of new medications was drastically reduced. Since that time, there have been many more cases of prescription drug related health problems/deaths for which people are suing. One answer to this would be to increase the testing standards of these medications.
There are many frivolous lawsuits in this country as well. I don't ever remember this type of stupidity going on years ago. The lost pants from the dry cleaners, the infamous hot coffee, etc., should never make it to court. People used to have more sense and would have been actually embarrassed to pursue such greedy, ridiculous lawsuits. Get rich quick schemes should not be encouraged by a judicial system.
I believe there are other ways to address this issue. The insurance companies are driving down the cost of medical care. This avenue should be pursued more agressively even if there is a universal health care program initiated. It should be done through private companies and not be a government bureacracy. I do believe that 46 million people unable to afford health care is totally unacceptable and must be addressed through multiple means.
Your question is the same as asking if Hitler was a good or evil man... and then demanding that nobody say anything about him killing millions and invading his neighbors. It doesn't make sense and it completely distorts any realistic answer.
But to answer your watered down question... yes, I have elderly relatives on Medicare. And I'm not aware of any procedure being denied to them.
Who takes care of your elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles?
You do if you love your family, it may seem harsh but it is not my fault that they did not plan well for retirement nor should i have to pay for there food, housing, or medical treatment. It is about people taking responsibility for them selves and there family.
Do they have medicare?
Medicare was a bad idea.
How is their insurance?
Push the government to put a cap on insurance for people under 18 and over 65.
Are any of them on a fixed income?
Most are if they did not plan for retirement.
Have any of them been denied medical procedures or medication that might make them more comfortable or prolong their lives?
Send a letter to your congressman to make it law that the doctors decides what is needed not your insurance.
For the poor countries....?
ok me and hubby was having a conversation about the government and stuff and budgets and why some countries are poorer than others right well why dont they just make more money...i mean money is made somewhere by someone init,theres a big ol' machine somewhere that turns paper into money so why dont they just use more paper and make more and share it out bit of a simple solution if you ask me,just get the guy who makes the stuff to do a spot of overtime and hey presto! no more underpriveliged folk,,what do say its right if you think about it!
Answers:
No its true if you really think about it. There is somewhere a polish worker on 拢3 a hour printing english money with the queens head on it. Why not print a few hundred billion more off, give the 3rd world a meal and condoms. Sod every other country off and we will all live as kings and proud to be english.
It's because their governments are corrupt and "take" all the money from the poor (and make themselves rich) and make them dependent on their broken system.
lol..making more money isn't the answer.
Its not that they don't have the money - South African government has the money for weapons etc but what about the starving people in the outbacks and jungles? Why don't they do something about their own people.
its a little bit more complex than that. if the did that it may cause inflation
a country's money has to been underwritten by the central bank. If you just print money without having the same value in your reserves it just devalues your currency by increasing inflation. A good example is Zimbabwe at the moment, Their inflation is something like 9000% because Mugabe just prints money at will.
heck no; you can't just "print more money."
if you print more money, that will put more money into the system. with more money in the system, it will be more abundant, and therefore less valuable. think about it.
this is called inflation, where the purchasing power of a unit of currency goes down. it would not help the people.
if printing money could solve the problems, don't you think poverty would've been cured. the government could then just print up wads of money and hand them out like candy, and everyone would live happily ever after.
but that doesn't happen, because that would cause inflation and undercut capitalism.
Great idea, print me a bucketful. This is the kind of thinking we need.
They did your idea of printing more money in weimar Germany and what happens is hyperinflation. So the countries become poorer.There are many factors why some countries ar poorer than the others, it could be the government, it could be there is no industry or it could be that they are ravaged by war etc.
The more money people have the higher inflation is, the price of things just goes up, so a loaf bread could cost millions.
Prices of products is about how much supply there is compared the amount of demand. So if there is only five loafs of bread in a shop yet 100 people want to buy it, it doesnt matter how much money they have in their pockets only the richest five could afford it.
One thing I like about ethical questions is; these questions remind us of how and where we did forget human socialism. Take the examples that used to be practised in native Africa, America societies "I mean the rain dances". that is to say, whether u get along with your neighbour or not, the need for rain to come as soon as possible is a common desire that brings all together for a common good, in fact u receive two goods in return; the chance to socialise again with your neighbour, plus the rain will come or not!
Rich or poor countries need not print more money because today the rain dance has taken a new face; political animals move about in the world societies to receive two goods in return.
Was going to answer, but Sean D sums it it perfectly. If everyone has more money, the price of food goes up at the same rate, whcih means that nothing will change.
oh my god, everyone thinks they have the answer but let me tell u, our bins got changed to 2 wkly collections and now theyre sayin if we want it back to wkly then we gotta pay 拢3.5mill more council tax as a small town, so y didnt our council tax go down then when it went to wkly collections? what i think is we should all nick stuff from shops, stop recyclin, stop payin our bills and all rebel against the tos**rs in the government then jus maybe we might get somewhere.
sorry jus needed a rant! xx
Answers:
No its true if you really think about it. There is somewhere a polish worker on 拢3 a hour printing english money with the queens head on it. Why not print a few hundred billion more off, give the 3rd world a meal and condoms. Sod every other country off and we will all live as kings and proud to be english.
It's because their governments are corrupt and "take" all the money from the poor (and make themselves rich) and make them dependent on their broken system.
lol..making more money isn't the answer.
Its not that they don't have the money - South African government has the money for weapons etc but what about the starving people in the outbacks and jungles? Why don't they do something about their own people.
its a little bit more complex than that. if the did that it may cause inflation
a country's money has to been underwritten by the central bank. If you just print money without having the same value in your reserves it just devalues your currency by increasing inflation. A good example is Zimbabwe at the moment, Their inflation is something like 9000% because Mugabe just prints money at will.
heck no; you can't just "print more money."
if you print more money, that will put more money into the system. with more money in the system, it will be more abundant, and therefore less valuable. think about it.
this is called inflation, where the purchasing power of a unit of currency goes down. it would not help the people.
if printing money could solve the problems, don't you think poverty would've been cured. the government could then just print up wads of money and hand them out like candy, and everyone would live happily ever after.
but that doesn't happen, because that would cause inflation and undercut capitalism.
Great idea, print me a bucketful. This is the kind of thinking we need.
They did your idea of printing more money in weimar Germany and what happens is hyperinflation. So the countries become poorer.There are many factors why some countries ar poorer than the others, it could be the government, it could be there is no industry or it could be that they are ravaged by war etc.
The more money people have the higher inflation is, the price of things just goes up, so a loaf bread could cost millions.
Prices of products is about how much supply there is compared the amount of demand. So if there is only five loafs of bread in a shop yet 100 people want to buy it, it doesnt matter how much money they have in their pockets only the richest five could afford it.
One thing I like about ethical questions is; these questions remind us of how and where we did forget human socialism. Take the examples that used to be practised in native Africa, America societies "I mean the rain dances". that is to say, whether u get along with your neighbour or not, the need for rain to come as soon as possible is a common desire that brings all together for a common good, in fact u receive two goods in return; the chance to socialise again with your neighbour, plus the rain will come or not!
Rich or poor countries need not print more money because today the rain dance has taken a new face; political animals move about in the world societies to receive two goods in return.
Was going to answer, but Sean D sums it it perfectly. If everyone has more money, the price of food goes up at the same rate, whcih means that nothing will change.
oh my god, everyone thinks they have the answer but let me tell u, our bins got changed to 2 wkly collections and now theyre sayin if we want it back to wkly then we gotta pay 拢3.5mill more council tax as a small town, so y didnt our council tax go down then when it went to wkly collections? what i think is we should all nick stuff from shops, stop recyclin, stop payin our bills and all rebel against the tos**rs in the government then jus maybe we might get somewhere.
sorry jus needed a rant! xx
For people who are under 21 or people who live in the hood ONLY.?
hi, i'm currently on probation and i've just got charged with minor consumption a few weeks ago meaning consumption of alcohal by a minor. well i'm 17 and i don't know what to do, this is my first time getting charged with this, i got a ticket from the police and stuff. well my sister told me not to say anything to my parents, it's been a few weeks now and even my parents don't even know, i don't even know if my probation officer knows but he will know when i see him today.
Here is what happened, me and my godbrother and my sister and my friend went in a car and my godbrother was driving, police pulled us over and he got dwi, then my other friend got charged with having weed and minor consumption and got his car towed, then my sister got charged with minor consumption, she's 18, i got charged with minor consumption, they didn't call home 'cuz i was with my sister and she's 18. she told me not to tell my parents anything then she just left me on my own. i don't know what to say.
Answers:
I live in the "hood" but I don't have to be from there to tell you that telling the truth is the best option here. You're not even an adult, so why start out your record by lying? That's the worst possible thing you can do.
That's not being a goody goody either. Something lost on a lot of people I grew up with is personal responsibility, accountability, and honesty. Are you going down the same road as all the other ghetto pieces of trash that you grew up with, or are you going to make something of yourself?
I might sound like an adult but I'm not much older than you, in fact only a few years.
Doing the right thing isn't stupid. Try it sometime.
tell the truth! be a man and tell the truth, not a lying coward. I would not worry about going to jail in your country, western justice and western jails are so liberal and cushy, many people wish to go there.
real men tell the truth, even if its ugly.
I weep for the future.
You want answers from a specific group of people because you want to hear the wrong thing...there's no sympathy here man...you did the crime, now do the time...if you want to change your life, stay away from people who bring you down and quit lieing...the truth shall set you free...that's not bullsh*t, it's the truth...
YEAH ur 17 dont start off bad u cant go to jail the only way u could get away with out telling ur parents is if u have the money to pay for ur ticket and ur p/o wont tell ur parents and ur sister isnt setting such a great example loook boi u gotta get ur **** strait and think what u want outta like ur gonna be 18 and thats when **** gets serious
tell the truth. is that not how you were raised. lies perpetuate more lies.
Well, I'm not under 21. But I was in a situation like that when I was. So I think I qualify to answer your question. Since you have a probation officer, I'm sure you are aware that you will not be able to go to court without a parent. So whether you tell them, or your probation officer tells them, they are going to find out, and you will not be able to avoid going to court. And being a parent, I would much rather my kid tell me, rather than someone else. Plus it's only respectful to your parents that they know far ahead of time when your court date is so they can plan to take off work. I'm not telling you what to do, but this will give you some stuff to think about.
I don't fully know your situation, but I can relate.
I got in a lot of trouble myself.
My father was absentee and my mother never seemed to care, so telling them the truth would not have made any difference for me.
However, what comes next after you get through this, is more important. You'll get through this. Every new challenge gets bigger; learn to see them coming, and learn to tell the difference between the ones that will be good for you and the ones that won't.
I loved my friends, but they were never really good for me (well in some ways they were, like self esteem).
Different friends did make for a different life for me.
I never really left them totally as I do see them sometimes, but my life is better.
Here is what happened, me and my godbrother and my sister and my friend went in a car and my godbrother was driving, police pulled us over and he got dwi, then my other friend got charged with having weed and minor consumption and got his car towed, then my sister got charged with minor consumption, she's 18, i got charged with minor consumption, they didn't call home 'cuz i was with my sister and she's 18. she told me not to tell my parents anything then she just left me on my own. i don't know what to say.
Answers:
I live in the "hood" but I don't have to be from there to tell you that telling the truth is the best option here. You're not even an adult, so why start out your record by lying? That's the worst possible thing you can do.
That's not being a goody goody either. Something lost on a lot of people I grew up with is personal responsibility, accountability, and honesty. Are you going down the same road as all the other ghetto pieces of trash that you grew up with, or are you going to make something of yourself?
I might sound like an adult but I'm not much older than you, in fact only a few years.
Doing the right thing isn't stupid. Try it sometime.
tell the truth! be a man and tell the truth, not a lying coward. I would not worry about going to jail in your country, western justice and western jails are so liberal and cushy, many people wish to go there.
real men tell the truth, even if its ugly.
I weep for the future.
You want answers from a specific group of people because you want to hear the wrong thing...there's no sympathy here man...you did the crime, now do the time...if you want to change your life, stay away from people who bring you down and quit lieing...the truth shall set you free...that's not bullsh*t, it's the truth...
YEAH ur 17 dont start off bad u cant go to jail the only way u could get away with out telling ur parents is if u have the money to pay for ur ticket and ur p/o wont tell ur parents and ur sister isnt setting such a great example loook boi u gotta get ur **** strait and think what u want outta like ur gonna be 18 and thats when **** gets serious
tell the truth. is that not how you were raised. lies perpetuate more lies.
Well, I'm not under 21. But I was in a situation like that when I was. So I think I qualify to answer your question. Since you have a probation officer, I'm sure you are aware that you will not be able to go to court without a parent. So whether you tell them, or your probation officer tells them, they are going to find out, and you will not be able to avoid going to court. And being a parent, I would much rather my kid tell me, rather than someone else. Plus it's only respectful to your parents that they know far ahead of time when your court date is so they can plan to take off work. I'm not telling you what to do, but this will give you some stuff to think about.
I don't fully know your situation, but I can relate.
I got in a lot of trouble myself.
My father was absentee and my mother never seemed to care, so telling them the truth would not have made any difference for me.
However, what comes next after you get through this, is more important. You'll get through this. Every new challenge gets bigger; learn to see them coming, and learn to tell the difference between the ones that will be good for you and the ones that won't.
I loved my friends, but they were never really good for me (well in some ways they were, like self esteem).
Different friends did make for a different life for me.
I never really left them totally as I do see them sometimes, but my life is better.
For over 20 years we have been fighting this war... can we win... how do we win?
For over 20 years we have been fighting the war on drugs and there are no less drugs than before, crime hasn't decreased, voilence hasn't decreased, etc...
When will it be time to examine our tactics against our citizens and form a conclusive strategy to end the war?
We have been dropping the hammer on these criminals for over 20 years and we are no closer to resolution... Isn't it time we switched tools?
We have reverted to no-knock warrants, paramilitary units, and using K-9 against our citizens. How can we possibly win and what would be the next logical step toward finalizing this war?
Answers:
You can not declare or fight a war on inanimate objects. The war on terror is another prime example in that you can not defeat a tactic. The only way to achieve victory in the 'war on drugs' is if you managed to destroy every trace of every drug and the chemicals associated with them. Yeah, that's impossible. Drugs have been used ever since the Roman Empire, and even before that. It's here to stay and the only measures to be taken against it is to pass legislation to punish those to make, sell, and use the drugs, but that only takes care of the end result.
First...you're using an antiquated phrase! It's no longer a "war" but a "cancer on society."
Tactics have been changed yet take years to see results. I've been a firm believer that you can't just go after the dealers...but the users as well. Additionally, the children must be educated thoroughly enough to have a FULL understanding of what drugs do to their own bodies as well as what they do to families, neighborhoods, and society.
The problem isn't as easy to deal with as some think. You have to consider our society as a whole.
Our educational system lacks compared to other countries. You have some who decide that education isn't "cool" and drop out. Selling drugs is a fast road to quick untaxed cash.
Peer pressure stating "it's cool to do %26lt;drugs%26gt;" makes it difficult for some who don't have the ability and conviction to decline.
Those who do try drugs...often times become so quickly addicted there's no stopping.
I don't care what anybody says about marijuana or any other drug...or what they do to their own body is their own business because it IS societies "business."
When addicts victimize innocent people to support their own habits.it becomes my business!
One can see the frustration when it comes to illegal drugs but when you have uneducated people promoting the legal use of drugs without having a full understanding of the ramifications involved.you have a continuing problem!
Just my humble opinion.
When will it be time to examine our tactics against our citizens and form a conclusive strategy to end the war?
We have been dropping the hammer on these criminals for over 20 years and we are no closer to resolution... Isn't it time we switched tools?
We have reverted to no-knock warrants, paramilitary units, and using K-9 against our citizens. How can we possibly win and what would be the next logical step toward finalizing this war?
Answers:
You can not declare or fight a war on inanimate objects. The war on terror is another prime example in that you can not defeat a tactic. The only way to achieve victory in the 'war on drugs' is if you managed to destroy every trace of every drug and the chemicals associated with them. Yeah, that's impossible. Drugs have been used ever since the Roman Empire, and even before that. It's here to stay and the only measures to be taken against it is to pass legislation to punish those to make, sell, and use the drugs, but that only takes care of the end result.
First...you're using an antiquated phrase! It's no longer a "war" but a "cancer on society."
Tactics have been changed yet take years to see results. I've been a firm believer that you can't just go after the dealers...but the users as well. Additionally, the children must be educated thoroughly enough to have a FULL understanding of what drugs do to their own bodies as well as what they do to families, neighborhoods, and society.
The problem isn't as easy to deal with as some think. You have to consider our society as a whole.
Our educational system lacks compared to other countries. You have some who decide that education isn't "cool" and drop out. Selling drugs is a fast road to quick untaxed cash.
Peer pressure stating "it's cool to do %26lt;drugs%26gt;" makes it difficult for some who don't have the ability and conviction to decline.
Those who do try drugs...often times become so quickly addicted there's no stopping.
I don't care what anybody says about marijuana or any other drug...or what they do to their own body is their own business because it IS societies "business."
When addicts victimize innocent people to support their own habits.it becomes my business!
One can see the frustration when it comes to illegal drugs but when you have uneducated people promoting the legal use of drugs without having a full understanding of the ramifications involved.you have a continuing problem!
Just my humble opinion.
For or against?
do u think that the death penalty is just?
Answers:
ABSOLUTELY
Yes, I do, as long as the criminal is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
yes, for it, but only in very serious convicts.
it depends what the person did.
How does killing someone solve anything? Vengeance and justice are two different things. This is why Batman doesn't carry a gun.
On a serious note, I had a good friend of mine who was brutally raped, stabbed to death and then burned. I don't want to see the asshole who did that to die. I want him alive, no easy way out there, I want him to have a long life and to die alone thinking about what he did to her. She was 17 years old, dammit.
yes i do ... but i think what ever you did to other person should be done to you..
yes, i only wish that it would be used more
is just what?
i say bring it back
No. Death comes to all. No one should decide the time and place.
Yes it is just, but in America its too expensive. It is actually cheaper to incarcerate them for life then to execute them thanks to the stupid lawyers.
Duh! ;-)
for
Only for Genocide, Treason, Rape and 1st degree Murder, and maybe some other particularly heinous crimes. I also think the evidentiary standard should be higher than for conviction alone.
dpilipis has a good point as well, I would like to see public executions, not only as a potential revenue source which could pay some of the associated costs, and as a check to insure the process runs smoothly, but also to increase the deterrent value of the death penalty. I think criminals would be much less likely to commit capital crimes if they had witenssed a few executions.
For those who point out the costs of administering the death penalty, aren't you really saying you would like to see it used but a cheaper process should be found? I count that as being for the theory but against the practice as currently constituted.
I think in considering this quesiton, we should ask ourselves as well, is it fair that we should have to pay room and board for convicted criminals? That our hard-earned money is used to provide comfort and shelter for those who have proven they do not deserve either?
the person who has killed someone should surely be given a death penalty,then only will he/she know what their victims went through
Its not a question about it being just. We need to start executing criminals and control the population here a little better. Theres no room left in the prisons.
no
it doesnt deter murderers
its expensive to administer
it leads to innocent people being killed
dont believe me?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/...
Absolutely.
I think it should be used more often too...and should extend to those who commit crimes against children.
depends on what its for rape, murder, yes like an eye for an eye
I don't think its fair, there were many people in texas bush put to the death penatly and there not sure now if they were guilty.
It has proven itself to be unjust. Just look at the innocent who have been either executed or held for years on death row.
Until you can make this ultimate act 100% accurate, it cannot be declared just.
No way stick them in the hole for the rest of there lifes, but how can you justify murder with murder cause thats what it really is when you think about it, no one should take life no matter what has happened...life in a small dark cell for 24hr every day would be worse i think....
Yes, but only with DNA evidence. Anything else like eyewitnesses, etc they should get Life.
weeder
yes it is because any one who committs a crime worthy of it needs to be killed! I know i dont want my tax dollars going to him sitting in jail for the rest of his life. get it over and done..get him out of this world!
Just wait until someone you love is taken away from you. Then ask yourself that question again.
for the death penalty
YES...the punishment should fit the crime...why should a family lose a child or parent and the person responsible is out free, in some cases after a short prison sentence.?
yes i do as they need a detriment as prison certainly isn't it.
Yep. But in an individual case by case analysis.
Some individuals can be rehabilitated to become productive members of the society they are a part of - even behind bars. If that is the case, then why not allow them a chance. But there are those that don't deserve a chance to live, given that they took that right away from their victims. Those cases, I think that death is the only viable option.
No.. I do not.
Our justice system is all out of whack.
and killing people is just a way to satisfy the victim's family's vengence.
I believe in the death penalty in principle.
The current justice system, however, needs to be reformed to make it more effective.
It takes forever to actually execute a convict (appeals should be shortened) and it is done in secret somewhere in a prison basement (it should be done in public)
Yes for very serious crimes.
Answers:
ABSOLUTELY
Yes, I do, as long as the criminal is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
yes, for it, but only in very serious convicts.
it depends what the person did.
How does killing someone solve anything? Vengeance and justice are two different things. This is why Batman doesn't carry a gun.
On a serious note, I had a good friend of mine who was brutally raped, stabbed to death and then burned. I don't want to see the asshole who did that to die. I want him alive, no easy way out there, I want him to have a long life and to die alone thinking about what he did to her. She was 17 years old, dammit.
yes i do ... but i think what ever you did to other person should be done to you..
yes, i only wish that it would be used more
is just what?
i say bring it back
No. Death comes to all. No one should decide the time and place.
Yes it is just, but in America its too expensive. It is actually cheaper to incarcerate them for life then to execute them thanks to the stupid lawyers.
Duh! ;-)
for
Only for Genocide, Treason, Rape and 1st degree Murder, and maybe some other particularly heinous crimes. I also think the evidentiary standard should be higher than for conviction alone.
dpilipis has a good point as well, I would like to see public executions, not only as a potential revenue source which could pay some of the associated costs, and as a check to insure the process runs smoothly, but also to increase the deterrent value of the death penalty. I think criminals would be much less likely to commit capital crimes if they had witenssed a few executions.
For those who point out the costs of administering the death penalty, aren't you really saying you would like to see it used but a cheaper process should be found? I count that as being for the theory but against the practice as currently constituted.
I think in considering this quesiton, we should ask ourselves as well, is it fair that we should have to pay room and board for convicted criminals? That our hard-earned money is used to provide comfort and shelter for those who have proven they do not deserve either?
the person who has killed someone should surely be given a death penalty,then only will he/she know what their victims went through
Its not a question about it being just. We need to start executing criminals and control the population here a little better. Theres no room left in the prisons.
no
it doesnt deter murderers
its expensive to administer
it leads to innocent people being killed
dont believe me?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/...
Absolutely.
I think it should be used more often too...and should extend to those who commit crimes against children.
depends on what its for rape, murder, yes like an eye for an eye
I don't think its fair, there were many people in texas bush put to the death penatly and there not sure now if they were guilty.
It has proven itself to be unjust. Just look at the innocent who have been either executed or held for years on death row.
Until you can make this ultimate act 100% accurate, it cannot be declared just.
No way stick them in the hole for the rest of there lifes, but how can you justify murder with murder cause thats what it really is when you think about it, no one should take life no matter what has happened...life in a small dark cell for 24hr every day would be worse i think....
Yes, but only with DNA evidence. Anything else like eyewitnesses, etc they should get Life.
weeder
yes it is because any one who committs a crime worthy of it needs to be killed! I know i dont want my tax dollars going to him sitting in jail for the rest of his life. get it over and done..get him out of this world!
Just wait until someone you love is taken away from you. Then ask yourself that question again.
for the death penalty
YES...the punishment should fit the crime...why should a family lose a child or parent and the person responsible is out free, in some cases after a short prison sentence.?
yes i do as they need a detriment as prison certainly isn't it.
Yep. But in an individual case by case analysis.
Some individuals can be rehabilitated to become productive members of the society they are a part of - even behind bars. If that is the case, then why not allow them a chance. But there are those that don't deserve a chance to live, given that they took that right away from their victims. Those cases, I think that death is the only viable option.
No.. I do not.
Our justice system is all out of whack.
and killing people is just a way to satisfy the victim's family's vengence.
I believe in the death penalty in principle.
The current justice system, however, needs to be reformed to make it more effective.
It takes forever to actually execute a convict (appeals should be shortened) and it is done in secret somewhere in a prison basement (it should be done in public)
Yes for very serious crimes.
For lawyers: In general what are the mechanics for obtaining a writ of mandamus to compell a Court to rule?
Answers:
It depends what court and what the issue.
Normally, each level of court is under the supervising authority of a higher court. If there is a clear obligation to rule immediately, a higher court might issue a writ upon a proper request. What constitutes a proper request is governed by local court rules which normally put specific requirements on a petition for a writ.
You should be aware that writs of mandamus to compel a decision by a lower court are very rare. For the most part, a judge can take as long as needed to rule. It is almost impossible for a party representing themselves to get a writ from a higher court. Most attorneys, having to appear in front of that judge again on other cases, are reluctant to file for a writ -- knowing that it is unlikely to be successful and not wanting to tick the judge off in the absence of a good chance at success.
I would strongly urge you to talk with your attorney. Unless the case has been under advisement for a substantial period of time (e.g. more than six months) and the failure to get a ruling is adversely effecting you in ways beyond mere uncertainty, you are unlikely to succeed and your attorney will properly advise you against pursuing a writ (especially as the judge could rule against you in ways that would hurt you on appeal after the writ issued).
Subtly slipping da judge a few samolians. (wink~rib~rib)
For how much can you sue the police for running over someone if the police didn't make a stop on a stop sign?
One of my co-workers got run over by a police,the policeman didn't stop in a stop sign and this guy was riding his bike back home.He has been in the hospital for a week with two broken ribs,one of the ribs perforated his lung causing pneumonia.
Answers:
This case is no different than when you get hit by anyone else other than a police officer -- unless there was a high speed chase involved and then it depends on laws in your jurisdiction.
Generally, you can calculate the amount you receive based on the medical bills involved. The medical amount will be multiplied by three, and then the doctors will get a third, the attorney will get a third, and the client will get a third. But the client's third will generally need to cover any time off work, future medical bills, etc. unless there is a permanent disability (full or partial) in which case the amounts are different. But it will be a long time before this can be figured out.
Chances are that your friend should already have been contacted by several local Personal Injury attorneys. If not, look for one and they will assist you in getting the best, most reasonable possible settlement.
Don't, under any circumstances, think "if I cut the attorney out, I can get their third" -- because the attorney will likely know more about your injuries than you do, and will know that you need to see the doctor more, or that your medical condition will likely worsen in the next 5 years, and stuff like that.
20 zillion. How much you are going to receive is another matter.
Answers:
This case is no different than when you get hit by anyone else other than a police officer -- unless there was a high speed chase involved and then it depends on laws in your jurisdiction.
Generally, you can calculate the amount you receive based on the medical bills involved. The medical amount will be multiplied by three, and then the doctors will get a third, the attorney will get a third, and the client will get a third. But the client's third will generally need to cover any time off work, future medical bills, etc. unless there is a permanent disability (full or partial) in which case the amounts are different. But it will be a long time before this can be figured out.
Chances are that your friend should already have been contacted by several local Personal Injury attorneys. If not, look for one and they will assist you in getting the best, most reasonable possible settlement.
Don't, under any circumstances, think "if I cut the attorney out, I can get their third" -- because the attorney will likely know more about your injuries than you do, and will know that you need to see the doctor more, or that your medical condition will likely worsen in the next 5 years, and stuff like that.
20 zillion. How much you are going to receive is another matter.
For every handgun you hand in you get a brand new iPhone or iPod?
And for every rifle or shotgun handed in, one gets a brand new electric bicycle? How's that to avoid a repetition of crazy shootings and crimes by young gun owners? Just a wild idea to explore ways to save more innocent lives being snuffed out by crazy weapon owners. An idea that may well encourage tourism and bring peace of mind to the citizens/locals. What are your concerned thoughts on these?
Answers:
Actually, a lot of places already have cash/prize incentives for handing in firearms--most with a no-questions-asked policy. Just today in the paper I read a story about a "Kicks for Guns" program in Ocoee, Fl, where you can get sneakers for turning in a gun--no questions asked. One man turned in a 4-foot-long rocket launcher for size-3 Reebok sneakers for his daughter.
Citizens use firearms more than 400,000 times per year to avert crime, and in less than 4% or 5% of those instances is a shot ever fired. (FBI statistics)
Maybe if you hand in your gun in exchange for an electric bicycle, it will be easier for the hood down the street to rob you of your new bike.
if they wanted an iphone, bike, or pony they would have bought one
but its hard for mentally deranged people to kill others with those items, therefore they buy a gun.
maybe we could give terrorists tickets to the circus in exchange for their IED's?
For a barter system like that to work, the gun owner really has to value the other object more than their gun. Do you see many people in the country trading in their rifles for electric bicycles? Guys in the city know that a gun can get them a bunch of iphones, so why would they trade for just one?
Handguns don't kill People kill.
People are the problem not the guns.
The idea should be better gun safety training and exposure of the dangers of gun use to the younger generations.
My father took me out periodically as a child to show me how a gun worked and the dangers (eg: the results of) shooting something.
I never touched my dad's guns without permission as a kid and that safety training carries over to today, where I have inherited several firearms from deceased relatives.
I'm not a gun-nut, but believe that an armed populace is the only protection from a tryannical govt.
For that reason, I'll keep my guns.
What about the people that have TWO guns?
Well, now they have an ipod AND a gun.
Sure, turn in your hand gun for a phone or bike, then when you need a gun to protect yourself you won't have it, but instead you will have a phone they can steal and a bike they can ride away on.
Thanks, but no thanks!
I'll keep my handgun. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
I have a better idea. Why don't we uphold our laws and not let anyone that uses a gun in a crime or has mental problems ever have a gun again. Why isn't Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton out raving about the college students that were killed? Is it just because the killer wasn't white?
You are living in a dream world. The only people stupid enough to hand in their firearms for these items are criminals who can replace them in less time than it took me to write this reply. Here is a little history for you. the largest mass murders in the United States were accomplished, not with any type of a firearm, but with 3 aircraft, on 9/11. Before that day, the largest mass murder in the United States was accomplinshed with 1 match, and 1 gallon of gasoline, in the Bronx, at the Happyland Night club. SOOOOOOOOO
Perhaps we should give away I-pod and color tv's for every 757 turned in, and an brand new bicycle for every gas station we level??
Get real... Guns are INANIMATE OBJECTS. It is the twisted person behind it that misuses it.
Answers:
Actually, a lot of places already have cash/prize incentives for handing in firearms--most with a no-questions-asked policy. Just today in the paper I read a story about a "Kicks for Guns" program in Ocoee, Fl, where you can get sneakers for turning in a gun--no questions asked. One man turned in a 4-foot-long rocket launcher for size-3 Reebok sneakers for his daughter.
Citizens use firearms more than 400,000 times per year to avert crime, and in less than 4% or 5% of those instances is a shot ever fired. (FBI statistics)
Maybe if you hand in your gun in exchange for an electric bicycle, it will be easier for the hood down the street to rob you of your new bike.
if they wanted an iphone, bike, or pony they would have bought one
but its hard for mentally deranged people to kill others with those items, therefore they buy a gun.
maybe we could give terrorists tickets to the circus in exchange for their IED's?
For a barter system like that to work, the gun owner really has to value the other object more than their gun. Do you see many people in the country trading in their rifles for electric bicycles? Guys in the city know that a gun can get them a bunch of iphones, so why would they trade for just one?
Handguns don't kill People kill.
People are the problem not the guns.
The idea should be better gun safety training and exposure of the dangers of gun use to the younger generations.
My father took me out periodically as a child to show me how a gun worked and the dangers (eg: the results of) shooting something.
I never touched my dad's guns without permission as a kid and that safety training carries over to today, where I have inherited several firearms from deceased relatives.
I'm not a gun-nut, but believe that an armed populace is the only protection from a tryannical govt.
For that reason, I'll keep my guns.
What about the people that have TWO guns?
Well, now they have an ipod AND a gun.
Sure, turn in your hand gun for a phone or bike, then when you need a gun to protect yourself you won't have it, but instead you will have a phone they can steal and a bike they can ride away on.
Thanks, but no thanks!
I'll keep my handgun. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
I have a better idea. Why don't we uphold our laws and not let anyone that uses a gun in a crime or has mental problems ever have a gun again. Why isn't Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton out raving about the college students that were killed? Is it just because the killer wasn't white?
You are living in a dream world. The only people stupid enough to hand in their firearms for these items are criminals who can replace them in less time than it took me to write this reply. Here is a little history for you. the largest mass murders in the United States were accomplished, not with any type of a firearm, but with 3 aircraft, on 9/11. Before that day, the largest mass murder in the United States was accomplinshed with 1 match, and 1 gallon of gasoline, in the Bronx, at the Happyland Night club. SOOOOOOOOO
Perhaps we should give away I-pod and color tv's for every 757 turned in, and an brand new bicycle for every gas station we level??
Get real... Guns are INANIMATE OBJECTS. It is the twisted person behind it that misuses it.
For breakfast I eat two slices of bread and two eggs for breakfast. how many calories is that.?
Answers:
White Bread a slice 120
Wheat Breat a slice 100 more fiber
Fried Egg (oil) 200
Fried Egg health oil (100-150)
400 to 640
I don't know why you are asking this in "Law and Ethics," but the 2 eggs would be 150 calories if you included the yolks. The 2 slices of bread would vary greatly depending on the brand. Can go from 100 on up. Also, that does not include any calories from cooking method (eg., fried in butter, etc.)
Do you just have plain bread? If so, then thats 200 calories. If its fried, around 300. The eggs are quite good, so that around 300. So you have about 500 calories in breakfast. If you are trying to lose weight then eat the same, but go omn a run before breakfast. Hope this helps?
eggs are 70 each
bread is 120 for two pieces i think
butter is 60 per tbls so there you go
what kind of bread? how much oil do you use to your eggs?
one egg 80 calories (the yelow part is what that is so fatting, and is not healthy. white good cholesterol, yellow bad cholesterol). 1 slice of white bread 75 calories, light bread is half the calories and dark bread is healther. 1 small spoon of oil is 45 calories, better use oil spray much much less calories and easy to use. do you use olive oil? its a healthy oil and very good for cooking and adding spice to food.
For anyone who believes abortion should be illegal?
If you are against abortion and believe that it should be made illegal, what, if any, penalty do you believe there should there be for pregnant women who continue to have abortions?
Answers:
A penalty would be imposable to enforce because you can use herbs to have an abortion!
You can pick them up at any health food store, take them, and nobody would ever know.
You can get an abortion without a doctor, and without anybody even knowing!
Here is some useful herbs for anyone wanting to cancel their pregnancy. These herbs are available at any health food store for about $3.00 to $12.00 a bottle. I have located most of them at my local store, so they should be available anywhere.
Angelica: can cause uterine contractions
Lovage: causes uterine contractions
Mistletoe: can cause contractions
Pennyroyal: can cause miscarriage.
Rue: can cause miscarriage
Tansy: can cause uterine contractions
Wild Ginger: an ammenogogue that causes uterine contractions
Wormwood: stimulates uterine contractions and be toxic in large doses.
These should only be used in safe dosage amounts according to recommendations on the bottle.
Here is a website on what to expect during a herbal abortion.
http://www.sisterzeus.com/whattoexpect.h...
Nutmeg can cause a miscarriage in large doses, but can also make you sick. Want an abortion? Just look in your spice rack! I would NOT recommend nutmeg, as it could make you sick, but if someone is denied an abortion they may have no other choice
I will leave that up to our Creator
The same penalty as any other homicide
Nothing. You don't go after the mother, you go after the doctors who preform them. That is how most anti-abortion laws work.
Abortionist and a woman who abort their babies. should have punishment like lethal injection or live in jail forever.
It's not the Government's choice as to whether you should be allowed to have your child or not. It is your choice. If you make abortion illegal, then you are going to have underground abortion clinics, and more deaths due to disease and germs. Think... Do you want someone to tell you want you can and can't do for the rest of your life? If so, you are nothing but a sheep.
Is worse to have an abortion than to use contraceptives. They can go to a health department and get contraceptives and learning material to avoid STD. Having sex irresponsible and then wanting the government to pay for the treatment of their STD costs a lot of money. Also, they can give the child in adoption. They can have surgery. The penalty should be to put them on jail, and if they want the abortion just to cover their appearances the penalty should be jail and put the names in public. Abortion for medical reasons is something different.
No one smart thinks it should be illegal.
It would not be a punishment for the women who had abortions, but for the doctors at the clinics who performed the abortions. Pull their license.
She should undergo for perament birth control operation. for that she will not bear a child again.
Answers:
A penalty would be imposable to enforce because you can use herbs to have an abortion!
You can pick them up at any health food store, take them, and nobody would ever know.
You can get an abortion without a doctor, and without anybody even knowing!
Here is some useful herbs for anyone wanting to cancel their pregnancy. These herbs are available at any health food store for about $3.00 to $12.00 a bottle. I have located most of them at my local store, so they should be available anywhere.
Angelica: can cause uterine contractions
Lovage: causes uterine contractions
Mistletoe: can cause contractions
Pennyroyal: can cause miscarriage.
Rue: can cause miscarriage
Tansy: can cause uterine contractions
Wild Ginger: an ammenogogue that causes uterine contractions
Wormwood: stimulates uterine contractions and be toxic in large doses.
These should only be used in safe dosage amounts according to recommendations on the bottle.
Here is a website on what to expect during a herbal abortion.
http://www.sisterzeus.com/whattoexpect.h...
Nutmeg can cause a miscarriage in large doses, but can also make you sick. Want an abortion? Just look in your spice rack! I would NOT recommend nutmeg, as it could make you sick, but if someone is denied an abortion they may have no other choice
I will leave that up to our Creator
The same penalty as any other homicide
Nothing. You don't go after the mother, you go after the doctors who preform them. That is how most anti-abortion laws work.
Abortionist and a woman who abort their babies. should have punishment like lethal injection or live in jail forever.
It's not the Government's choice as to whether you should be allowed to have your child or not. It is your choice. If you make abortion illegal, then you are going to have underground abortion clinics, and more deaths due to disease and germs. Think... Do you want someone to tell you want you can and can't do for the rest of your life? If so, you are nothing but a sheep.
Is worse to have an abortion than to use contraceptives. They can go to a health department and get contraceptives and learning material to avoid STD. Having sex irresponsible and then wanting the government to pay for the treatment of their STD costs a lot of money. Also, they can give the child in adoption. They can have surgery. The penalty should be to put them on jail, and if they want the abortion just to cover their appearances the penalty should be jail and put the names in public. Abortion for medical reasons is something different.
No one smart thinks it should be illegal.
It would not be a punishment for the women who had abortions, but for the doctors at the clinics who performed the abortions. Pull their license.
She should undergo for perament birth control operation. for that she will not bear a child again.
FOR ANY TRUSTEES LAWYER - understandable??
If I delegated investment advisor for my bank investment, what does that mean? Is he going to have power over my money and my account, without coming to me each and every time to obtain my approval? How much is his power over my account, and is it limited?
Answers:
You need to literally spell it out on the agreement. You can legally limit what your banker can or can not do on your behalf. . .
depends on what the contract says and what type of an account it is.
Answers:
You need to literally spell it out on the agreement. You can legally limit what your banker can or can not do on your behalf. . .
depends on what the contract says and what type of an account it is.
For all the pro-lifers... what is your opinion on the baby dropoff law?
Baby Safe Haven, Baby Moses, Baby Drop-Off Programs
Some people claim that laws providing for the legal abandonment of infants at baby safe havens will save lives. Is that true? How will the results be measured? What are the arguments against what are sometimes called the "baby Moses", "baby drop-off" or "baby dump" laws?
Families Need Protection From Baby Safe Haven
With only one option provided, no questions asked and no help provided, frightened young moms are giving birth on their own and then doing the best they know how for their newborn sons and daughters by abandoning them at fire stations, churches, hospitals. Billed as a protection for both mothers and babies, in fact not only mothers and babies but also fathers need protection from this law.
Here's the website for the full article: http://www.adoption-articles.com/baby_sa...
Answers:
I would assume that people who are truly pro-life would welcome any option that doesn't require the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
If their concern is truly the life of the baby-to-be, then who ends up taking care of that baby after birth (assuming it's not abused) doesn't enter into the pro-life equation.
However, I've noticed that in practice, many individual who claim to be pro-life are really not -- they're just anti-choice.
I'm not a "pro-lifer", but I truly don't understand this writer's problem with states providing the safe haven option. This is not the only recourse available to pregnant women/new mothers -- it's a measure to address a single aspect of the problem. I don't think it makes any sense to vilify safe havens for not solving every other associated problem at the same time.
I think that these havens are simply necessary. Maybe if we had better sex ed and easier, cheaper access to birth control, we wouldn't need abortions or these safe havens.
Are you an idiot?!
"Families need protection from these programs"?!?!?! The help being provided is offering an alternative to a dumpster!!
This article is infuriating, quote: "Safe Haven laws, despite their good intent, are ultimately anti-adoptee, anti-adoption, anti-child, anti-woman, and anti-family."
This is bullsh*t. How on earth is a program that takes unwanted children and places them up for adoption anti-adoptee, anti-adoption, and anti-child?
How can a program that offers a compassionate option for women in a situation worse than most of us can imagine* be "anti-woman"?
(*by worse than most of us can imagine, I'm NOT talking about just being young, pregnant, alienated from your family, frightened and confused: I'm talking about coming from a situation so horrible that killing your full-term baby seems to be the only option for you)
One legitimate point "the children will never know where they came from, what their lineage is, yada, yada, yada..." Yeah, that sucks, I see how some extremely emotionally challenged people could never cope with that... You know what would be worse though? If a woman who is scared for her safety or the safety of her other children at home was arrested for child abandonment, her name published, whatever she was so afraid of coming to pass...
Imagine a woman who wants to give her baby up for adoption, but she is HIDING the pregnancy from someone she knows will harm her if they find out... She has no way of knowing she can trust the idiot volunteers at the adoption agency to not call her house constantly, not to send things to her, not to stop by, or harass her about medical appointments that she is unable to keep due to the secrecy of her condition...
I'm so angry about this article... I can't even continue. I know I'm not making sense...
One last quote: "One moment of fear over some temporary situation and a mother and father may have lost their child forever. I hope all mothers who have been duped by this ill-considered safe haven project take steps to get their baby back. I hope all fathers whose rights have been by-passed all together take steps to get their baby back. I hope someone cares enough about these children to give them back, without a fight."
THINK OF THE EMOTIONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR AN ADOPTED CHILD BEING TAKEN FROM THE ONLY HOME HE KNOWS, BEING FORCED TO LIVE WITH "BIOLOGICAL" STRANGERS!!
I know a woman who had to return her adopted infant after mothering him for 7 months... She has never recovered, and that child is NOT in a better place having been given to the grandparents of the teenager who gave birth to him.
I think I just had an aneurysm. I'm going to have to go have an abortion to make myself feel better now.
Some people claim that laws providing for the legal abandonment of infants at baby safe havens will save lives. Is that true? How will the results be measured? What are the arguments against what are sometimes called the "baby Moses", "baby drop-off" or "baby dump" laws?
Families Need Protection From Baby Safe Haven
With only one option provided, no questions asked and no help provided, frightened young moms are giving birth on their own and then doing the best they know how for their newborn sons and daughters by abandoning them at fire stations, churches, hospitals. Billed as a protection for both mothers and babies, in fact not only mothers and babies but also fathers need protection from this law.
Here's the website for the full article: http://www.adoption-articles.com/baby_sa...
Answers:
I would assume that people who are truly pro-life would welcome any option that doesn't require the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
If their concern is truly the life of the baby-to-be, then who ends up taking care of that baby after birth (assuming it's not abused) doesn't enter into the pro-life equation.
However, I've noticed that in practice, many individual who claim to be pro-life are really not -- they're just anti-choice.
I'm not a "pro-lifer", but I truly don't understand this writer's problem with states providing the safe haven option. This is not the only recourse available to pregnant women/new mothers -- it's a measure to address a single aspect of the problem. I don't think it makes any sense to vilify safe havens for not solving every other associated problem at the same time.
I think that these havens are simply necessary. Maybe if we had better sex ed and easier, cheaper access to birth control, we wouldn't need abortions or these safe havens.
Are you an idiot?!
"Families need protection from these programs"?!?!?! The help being provided is offering an alternative to a dumpster!!
This article is infuriating, quote: "Safe Haven laws, despite their good intent, are ultimately anti-adoptee, anti-adoption, anti-child, anti-woman, and anti-family."
This is bullsh*t. How on earth is a program that takes unwanted children and places them up for adoption anti-adoptee, anti-adoption, and anti-child?
How can a program that offers a compassionate option for women in a situation worse than most of us can imagine* be "anti-woman"?
(*by worse than most of us can imagine, I'm NOT talking about just being young, pregnant, alienated from your family, frightened and confused: I'm talking about coming from a situation so horrible that killing your full-term baby seems to be the only option for you)
One legitimate point "the children will never know where they came from, what their lineage is, yada, yada, yada..." Yeah, that sucks, I see how some extremely emotionally challenged people could never cope with that... You know what would be worse though? If a woman who is scared for her safety or the safety of her other children at home was arrested for child abandonment, her name published, whatever she was so afraid of coming to pass...
Imagine a woman who wants to give her baby up for adoption, but she is HIDING the pregnancy from someone she knows will harm her if they find out... She has no way of knowing she can trust the idiot volunteers at the adoption agency to not call her house constantly, not to send things to her, not to stop by, or harass her about medical appointments that she is unable to keep due to the secrecy of her condition...
I'm so angry about this article... I can't even continue. I know I'm not making sense...
One last quote: "One moment of fear over some temporary situation and a mother and father may have lost their child forever. I hope all mothers who have been duped by this ill-considered safe haven project take steps to get their baby back. I hope all fathers whose rights have been by-passed all together take steps to get their baby back. I hope someone cares enough about these children to give them back, without a fight."
THINK OF THE EMOTIONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR AN ADOPTED CHILD BEING TAKEN FROM THE ONLY HOME HE KNOWS, BEING FORCED TO LIVE WITH "BIOLOGICAL" STRANGERS!!
I know a woman who had to return her adopted infant after mothering him for 7 months... She has never recovered, and that child is NOT in a better place having been given to the grandparents of the teenager who gave birth to him.
I think I just had an aneurysm. I'm going to have to go have an abortion to make myself feel better now.
For 2500 Points: Under Code of Contact, Article 7 is the WHAT Millennium Copyright ACT?
Answers:
DIGITAL WORKS FOR THE RADIO TRIVIA!!!
mas
Tandoori chicken!
Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
digital works for radio trivia
Digital works for radio trivia
-j
digital
Digital
digital
Digital is the correct answer for the radio trivia.
t
Digital is the answer.
RCR
Foot and Mouth - Heads should Roll?
If it turns out to be a lab licensed by the goverment some one should pay. No goverment inquiry unless they act. Good grief what is happening, can we afford any goverment that does not make sure we are safe. OK kill a few million cattle, stop our exports, get our products banned abroad, but please lets remember the farmers ( and us as well, watch those prices soar).
We do not need foreigners knocking us, we have a goverment to do that it seems.
Now lets get the goverment try to get out of this one.
What else is lurking in the cupboard?
Answers:
There are all kinds of sick, disgusting scientists screwing around with deadly diseases (to humans and livestock). These a$$holes are even trying to make man-made versions of natural deadly germs (such as polio, small pox, anthrax, etc).
These people need to be stopped, but no one seems to care.
Need to find the head first...tricky
I hope they do find the source and I hope its really over it was such a major disaster when it last occurred.
I hope its not an EU plot or terrorist attack but it seems incredible to think that the virus could of got out of the lab unless it was bought out. I expect the lab workers will be checked quite closely.
Yeah but whos?
The crafty dodgers, delayed the full report for 24+hours.
Now we are being told that it could have been a worker at the laboratory, but we will 'never' know who.
In other words to catch the person responsible, every single person working at the lab or who visited the lab must be beheaded on the village green.
Typical muck up!
To add insult to injury the meat supply here in London is rapidly running out. Smithfield looks pretty empty on TV eve news today.
For some daft reason, about a month ago, I decided to buy a freezer load of meat plus a load of cans of bully beef.
Don't ask what possessed me to do it. Just pure coincidence and good luck.
Anyway, I expect things will get back to normal just in time for the Xmas turkey rush!
Bets anyone?
Edit: it's not just the shortage of meat. There is also the problem of a harvest which has not been gathered in, which is now stuck in the fields and which will soon start to rot.
Mad or what?
On top of this, our chums, the everlasting great enemy, the Frogs, are forcing the price of their food up. They are holding us to ransom.
Know what to do don't we? Right! All holidays to France for 2008 cancelled. That should do the trick.
Don't be silly now , thinking as you whould in the real world
The world these people are in , is controled by our Govenment , and as such , they will get away with it
Look at the matter with Bernard Mathews , his company caused the problem , we the tax payer had to pick up the tab ,
We do not need foreigners knocking us, we have a goverment to do that it seems.
Now lets get the goverment try to get out of this one.
What else is lurking in the cupboard?
Answers:
There are all kinds of sick, disgusting scientists screwing around with deadly diseases (to humans and livestock). These a$$holes are even trying to make man-made versions of natural deadly germs (such as polio, small pox, anthrax, etc).
These people need to be stopped, but no one seems to care.
Need to find the head first...tricky
I hope they do find the source and I hope its really over it was such a major disaster when it last occurred.
I hope its not an EU plot or terrorist attack but it seems incredible to think that the virus could of got out of the lab unless it was bought out. I expect the lab workers will be checked quite closely.
Yeah but whos?
The crafty dodgers, delayed the full report for 24+hours.
Now we are being told that it could have been a worker at the laboratory, but we will 'never' know who.
In other words to catch the person responsible, every single person working at the lab or who visited the lab must be beheaded on the village green.
Typical muck up!
To add insult to injury the meat supply here in London is rapidly running out. Smithfield looks pretty empty on TV eve news today.
For some daft reason, about a month ago, I decided to buy a freezer load of meat plus a load of cans of bully beef.
Don't ask what possessed me to do it. Just pure coincidence and good luck.
Anyway, I expect things will get back to normal just in time for the Xmas turkey rush!
Bets anyone?
Edit: it's not just the shortage of meat. There is also the problem of a harvest which has not been gathered in, which is now stuck in the fields and which will soon start to rot.
Mad or what?
On top of this, our chums, the everlasting great enemy, the Frogs, are forcing the price of their food up. They are holding us to ransom.
Know what to do don't we? Right! All holidays to France for 2008 cancelled. That should do the trick.
Don't be silly now , thinking as you whould in the real world
The world these people are in , is controled by our Govenment , and as such , they will get away with it
Look at the matter with Bernard Mathews , his company caused the problem , we the tax payer had to pick up the tab ,
Food selling without license and beer?
some hispanic people in my neighborhood are selling food without license. selling beer, on sundays and also they sell meat.
I would like for someone to come and stop all of this. Also some people have gotten sick over the food. The trash can is full of trash right in front of where they sell. Who can i report this issue to ? Thanks
Answers:
The local health department and whoever issues business licenses in your area.
The Board of Health.
There's no need to fear.Watchdog Rob is here!
I would like for someone to come and stop all of this. Also some people have gotten sick over the food. The trash can is full of trash right in front of where they sell. Who can i report this issue to ? Thanks
Answers:
The local health department and whoever issues business licenses in your area.
The Board of Health.
There's no need to fear.Watchdog Rob is here!
Food Poison? What can i do legally..?
I ate at a hospital and the woman behind counter made comment about eggs, but served them anyway.. Me, my sister, and grandmother have same symptoms. Went to ER tonight and I Have food poison. What can I do. Can I sue them. I have a hospital bill and missed 3 days of work over this./
Answers:
You can, but proving that it was the hospital food and not something else you ate might be difficult to do. However, if all three of you got sick, and that's the only meal you ate together, then that's decent evidence. It would be good to get a witness who had the same symptoms that wasn't part of your family, because they could just say you guys have an allergy to something and it runs in the family.
==============
To the person who said you must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt: I'm sorry to say that you are incorrect. In law, there are different standards that are followed when determining fault or guilt. The reasonable doubt standard is ONLY applied in criminal cases because the accused has his or her freedom taken away if found guilty. However, in civil cases (in tort law) where the punishment is monetary loss, there is a different standard that is used: the preponderance of the evidence. Basically, the litigant/claimant/plaintiff has to prove that it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that the food poisoning was caused by this restaurant.
Remember the OJ case? He was found not guilty by the jury, but in the civil case he was found liable for the wrongful death of the victims. It was much easier to prove that it was more likely than not that OJ killed those people. But it was very difficult for the District Attorney to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So he didn't go to jail, but he had a good lump of his cash taken from him.
you can attempt a civil suit.
you might contact the health dpt for them to investigate the reason for 3 ppl getting sick... there might be more cases out there from the same eggs
Only if you can PROVE, beyond a reasonble doubt that they did cause it and then you have to be able to prove there were damages.
ask a lawyer
just drop it, live and learn.
Answers:
You can, but proving that it was the hospital food and not something else you ate might be difficult to do. However, if all three of you got sick, and that's the only meal you ate together, then that's decent evidence. It would be good to get a witness who had the same symptoms that wasn't part of your family, because they could just say you guys have an allergy to something and it runs in the family.
==============
To the person who said you must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt: I'm sorry to say that you are incorrect. In law, there are different standards that are followed when determining fault or guilt. The reasonable doubt standard is ONLY applied in criminal cases because the accused has his or her freedom taken away if found guilty. However, in civil cases (in tort law) where the punishment is monetary loss, there is a different standard that is used: the preponderance of the evidence. Basically, the litigant/claimant/plaintiff has to prove that it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that the food poisoning was caused by this restaurant.
Remember the OJ case? He was found not guilty by the jury, but in the civil case he was found liable for the wrongful death of the victims. It was much easier to prove that it was more likely than not that OJ killed those people. But it was very difficult for the District Attorney to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So he didn't go to jail, but he had a good lump of his cash taken from him.
you can attempt a civil suit.
you might contact the health dpt for them to investigate the reason for 3 ppl getting sick... there might be more cases out there from the same eggs
Only if you can PROVE, beyond a reasonble doubt that they did cause it and then you have to be able to prove there were damages.
ask a lawyer
just drop it, live and learn.
Food for thought?
1) Should the government tell a church what to do or say?
If you say that as long as the church follows the law of government, government should not dictate what the church says or teaches - then consider that slavery was once the law.
2) Should the church stand against what is wrong, going against the government? (the catholic church has taken much criticism about not speaking up agianst Hitler).
3) If something is true, is it wrong to say? (don't take the easy escape out with "who decides what is wrong" or "your wrong may not be my wrong" - we all know basic right %26 wrong i.e. murder, stealing etc).
Serious answers only please because I have seen a lot of people dancing around the issues on other questions today %26 I really want to hear what your view is. Thank you.
Answers:
To answer the first two questions, when the government starts telling churches what to say, we are no longer a free country. To answer your third question, legally and morally I don't consider it wrong in most cases.
1. No.
2. Not a single answer. A church (or a person) can always speak out about what they think is valid. That doesn't give the church (or anyone in it) the right to break the laws. But it does give them the right to seek to change those laws, but only for generally applicable non-religious reasons.
3. Truth is relative, not absolute. But you can always speak your personal truth. Doesn't mean it's true for everyone.
The government historically, probably based on the general separation of church and state issue, does not generally influence what churches preach. The only place where this question actually comes into play is in cases where a church handles its finances in such a way as to jeopardize its tax exempt status.
Should a church take a stand on "right and wrong?" Churches generally teach the dogma of their faith. Sometimes those teachings are relevant and popular and other times those teachings are not relevant and are unpopular.
They are both influential entities with lots of disposable cash and secret agendas. They take turns being most influential. Neither can be trusted. Both are terrible.
Don't expect anything but nonsense from the Catholic Church or any branch of the government because they are oriented toward the protection of their narrow interests. Each has always behaved in this fashion and I don't expect their introverted behavior to ever change, yet nothing stays the same because everything is always moving.
Moreover, the conditions are prime for slavery to begin again, right here in the United States. Who could stop the beast? The UN? Warsaw? The church? Two million 9-mms and a few thousand assault rifles? The same citizens who sit around and do nothing (me included) while children are snatched from their homes, raped then killed?
It is already happening to a limited extent. Police departments can pick up any ol black person and charge him or her with a crime and execute that person for said crime though that person is innocent. Happens all the time. Wayne Williams is a prime example although he is serving life.
In this modern form of slavery, the goal is to thwart ones efforts toward becoming a productive citizen rather than exploit their labor skills. The profit is integrated in the legal system: court appearances, lawyers, judges, motions, trials, appeals, prisons, food, clothes, guards, courtrooms, bailiffs, sundries, tasers, rubber bullets, etc. Do you see the transition?
The Catholic Church would again sit on the sidelines like it did before. Rightly so, afterall, Catholics and Christians were slave holders and some might even relish the prospect of a return to that era. Time will tell.
Telling the truth may hurt you, but it is never wrong.
Everyone will have a turn at being someone else. The soul wants to experience all of it! The person you now condemn is yourself a little later on. Be careful what you think, say, and do because all is being recorded for our transitional review. That is the law of consequence.
Read Conversations with God by Neale Walsch for clarity.
If you say that as long as the church follows the law of government, government should not dictate what the church says or teaches - then consider that slavery was once the law.
2) Should the church stand against what is wrong, going against the government? (the catholic church has taken much criticism about not speaking up agianst Hitler).
3) If something is true, is it wrong to say? (don't take the easy escape out with "who decides what is wrong" or "your wrong may not be my wrong" - we all know basic right %26 wrong i.e. murder, stealing etc).
Serious answers only please because I have seen a lot of people dancing around the issues on other questions today %26 I really want to hear what your view is. Thank you.
Answers:
To answer the first two questions, when the government starts telling churches what to say, we are no longer a free country. To answer your third question, legally and morally I don't consider it wrong in most cases.
1. No.
2. Not a single answer. A church (or a person) can always speak out about what they think is valid. That doesn't give the church (or anyone in it) the right to break the laws. But it does give them the right to seek to change those laws, but only for generally applicable non-religious reasons.
3. Truth is relative, not absolute. But you can always speak your personal truth. Doesn't mean it's true for everyone.
The government historically, probably based on the general separation of church and state issue, does not generally influence what churches preach. The only place where this question actually comes into play is in cases where a church handles its finances in such a way as to jeopardize its tax exempt status.
Should a church take a stand on "right and wrong?" Churches generally teach the dogma of their faith. Sometimes those teachings are relevant and popular and other times those teachings are not relevant and are unpopular.
They are both influential entities with lots of disposable cash and secret agendas. They take turns being most influential. Neither can be trusted. Both are terrible.
Don't expect anything but nonsense from the Catholic Church or any branch of the government because they are oriented toward the protection of their narrow interests. Each has always behaved in this fashion and I don't expect their introverted behavior to ever change, yet nothing stays the same because everything is always moving.
Moreover, the conditions are prime for slavery to begin again, right here in the United States. Who could stop the beast? The UN? Warsaw? The church? Two million 9-mms and a few thousand assault rifles? The same citizens who sit around and do nothing (me included) while children are snatched from their homes, raped then killed?
It is already happening to a limited extent. Police departments can pick up any ol black person and charge him or her with a crime and execute that person for said crime though that person is innocent. Happens all the time. Wayne Williams is a prime example although he is serving life.
In this modern form of slavery, the goal is to thwart ones efforts toward becoming a productive citizen rather than exploit their labor skills. The profit is integrated in the legal system: court appearances, lawyers, judges, motions, trials, appeals, prisons, food, clothes, guards, courtrooms, bailiffs, sundries, tasers, rubber bullets, etc. Do you see the transition?
The Catholic Church would again sit on the sidelines like it did before. Rightly so, afterall, Catholics and Christians were slave holders and some might even relish the prospect of a return to that era. Time will tell.
Telling the truth may hurt you, but it is never wrong.
Everyone will have a turn at being someone else. The soul wants to experience all of it! The person you now condemn is yourself a little later on. Be careful what you think, say, and do because all is being recorded for our transitional review. That is the law of consequence.
Read Conversations with God by Neale Walsch for clarity.
Follow up to rescuing grand baby question.?
The wife and I are located in Alabama. The childs mother swept her up and ran to Indiana. The mother of this child is of low class to say the least. Will give about 2 baths per week to the child, has no structure as in bed time or rights from wrongs and one year ago, turned the child loose in a yard with a shepard that ended with mauling the little girls face. The mother is now fighting a law suite and all that she can think of is getting a new car with the proceeds. We (wife and I) actually fear for this small one, but have been told that because I am a step parent, that I have no say in this. Sure my money is good to an attorney, but I cant get a straight answer as to our legal chances. I mean 4000. to an attorney just to be told "no way" would make me angry at best. What about crossing state lines for this? How does all of this work? This is a situation that I am very unskilled with. Thanks for all understanding responses.
Answers:
No.
I hate to say it, but even though you don't care for the circumstances and environment this child is being raised in (hey, I don't either by the sounds of it!) you don't have a court case at this point, nobody does.
Not until there is proof that this mother has on several, not just one, but several ocassions, either put this child's life in danger, or severely neglected or abused her. Remember that there are horrific cases of abuse in homes and child protective services still give the parents another chance. They resist removing a child from the parental home until they feel the parent has exhausted all possible chances, and that usually includes extensive counseling and child protective services visits and monitoring.
One dog mauling incident is not much in the court's eyes. It could happen to anybody, even the best of parents. Dogs are unpredictable, and never will a court hold that against the parent for a single incident.
What else do you have? Not enough baths for your standards will make the courts laugh. I'm just being honest with you here!
Things that the courts will listen to include such things as: proof of neglect, such as leaving the child home alone, proof of abuse, such as hitting the child in public or broken bones, etc., proof of drug involvement, such as the child actually ingesting drugs herself or swat raids to the home, (and even one swat raid is not enough!), or, in this case---that self-proclaimed "sex addiction".
Sex addicts are unwell. If you can get any proof that this child has witnessed sex acts on several occasions, then you might just have a case. True sex addicts stop at nothing. If this woman is truly a sex addict, at some point she will involve the child in the activities, if only to hold the camera. Only after she has done so will the courts remove the child from the home. From the sounds of this situation, I would say do your homework on this particular part of this child's life. If you see the child alone sometimes, ask her questions about sexual activity. Then, if the child reveals that child sex abuse has taken place, only then do you call child protective services.
The court process is long, tedious, and flawed, and often takes years. But this is the only method to remove a child from a parental home. The local child protective services make this decision, not a judge after hearing the case that your lawyer presents, who only has the role of aiding your case if you decide to sue for custody after child protective services has declared the mother unfit.
I painted a grim picture, but I'm just trying to help you see how the process works. I hope that you can convince your grand-daughter's mother to allow the child to have week-long visits with you, etc., where you can find out from the child if anything abusive is happening. And, even then, the court's are often unwilling to accept just the tales of a minor. You will need an adult as a witness, or child protective services, and child protective services will hire a child psychologist to witness for the child's version of stories.
Your best bet is to have the mother give you custody. If you can take care of the child for her often, she may just decide that she likes having her free time. At this point, until you have more proof, I suggest you work with the mother instead of against her.
One more thing--If you ever get child protective services involved, remember that at that moment you have in essence, terminated your visitations with the child. The mother will no doubt stop letting you see her. I did some homework online, and Indiana has no grandparent rights. Another reason that I suggest that you work with the mother, stealthily ask the child questions, and only get the state agency involved once you have something firm that is some kind of definite abuse.
What I'm saying here is that if this case goes to court, it will be the state agency child protective services representing the state of Indiana, and the case will be "Indiana vs. _____(insert your step-daughter's name).
See how you are taken out of the equation?
Good luck.
Hmm, that certainly makes it fuzzier. Keep in mind that taking a child from it's rightful and legal guardian -- no matter how bad she is -- and taking the kid across state lines is a felony and equals many years in Club Fed.
That being said, I think now you have a much greater chance of getting custody, especially with the lawsuit and the dog-mauling bit. You have fewer rights than your wife, as the steppgrandparent, but if you and your wife appeal for custody of the child together that should eliminate that.
I think you have a great case, you should get a lawyer asap.
Go here and ask.Lot's of attorneys that will give you advice
http://forum.freeadvice.com/
You have not custodial rights to this child. The mother I assume has not been determined to be unfit, and her custodial rights have not been termiinated by a court. Your perception of the mother may or may not be accurate, but even if it is, without court intervention, you cannot do anything about it. Even if you were her natural parent, you would have no standing to act on this. Now if you feel the child is legitimately in danger, you could report this to DCYS (youth services) and have them monitor or investigate the situation. If there is a determination that she is an unfit mother, it's POSSIBLE that you could get custody as foster parents or guardians. But based upon the facts you gave...even including the dog incident...it is highly unlikely.
Has Child Protective Services (aka Social Services) ever been involved? If you truly believe the child is in danger or has been abused, abandoned or neglected, you need to call the abuse hotline in the state the child lives in. However, please do not call the abuse hotline out of anger or retribution, it is truly a horrible thing to accuse someone of child abuse if they are innocent. It can cause heartache not only for the parent, but for the child as well.
Having an unstructured lifestyle, having low moral standards, or being "low class" do not constitute child abuse, but inadequately supervising a small child, especially if it resulted in injury to the child, certainly does. Once the hotline has been contacted, an investigation will occur which could take several months to complete. The child will be interviewed, as well as the parents and others who have contact with the family. The outcome can range from nothing happening to criminal charges being filed against the mother. The child could be placed in foster care if a suitable relative or family friend cannot take custody--and don't just think that they will give the child to you automatically, there is an extensive background check process. Unless there are verified findings of abuse, neglect or abandonment, it's not likely that you will win custody of the child in court. Judges don't like to take children from their parents unless it's absolutely necessary.
Answers:
No.
I hate to say it, but even though you don't care for the circumstances and environment this child is being raised in (hey, I don't either by the sounds of it!) you don't have a court case at this point, nobody does.
Not until there is proof that this mother has on several, not just one, but several ocassions, either put this child's life in danger, or severely neglected or abused her. Remember that there are horrific cases of abuse in homes and child protective services still give the parents another chance. They resist removing a child from the parental home until they feel the parent has exhausted all possible chances, and that usually includes extensive counseling and child protective services visits and monitoring.
One dog mauling incident is not much in the court's eyes. It could happen to anybody, even the best of parents. Dogs are unpredictable, and never will a court hold that against the parent for a single incident.
What else do you have? Not enough baths for your standards will make the courts laugh. I'm just being honest with you here!
Things that the courts will listen to include such things as: proof of neglect, such as leaving the child home alone, proof of abuse, such as hitting the child in public or broken bones, etc., proof of drug involvement, such as the child actually ingesting drugs herself or swat raids to the home, (and even one swat raid is not enough!), or, in this case---that self-proclaimed "sex addiction".
Sex addicts are unwell. If you can get any proof that this child has witnessed sex acts on several occasions, then you might just have a case. True sex addicts stop at nothing. If this woman is truly a sex addict, at some point she will involve the child in the activities, if only to hold the camera. Only after she has done so will the courts remove the child from the home. From the sounds of this situation, I would say do your homework on this particular part of this child's life. If you see the child alone sometimes, ask her questions about sexual activity. Then, if the child reveals that child sex abuse has taken place, only then do you call child protective services.
The court process is long, tedious, and flawed, and often takes years. But this is the only method to remove a child from a parental home. The local child protective services make this decision, not a judge after hearing the case that your lawyer presents, who only has the role of aiding your case if you decide to sue for custody after child protective services has declared the mother unfit.
I painted a grim picture, but I'm just trying to help you see how the process works. I hope that you can convince your grand-daughter's mother to allow the child to have week-long visits with you, etc., where you can find out from the child if anything abusive is happening. And, even then, the court's are often unwilling to accept just the tales of a minor. You will need an adult as a witness, or child protective services, and child protective services will hire a child psychologist to witness for the child's version of stories.
Your best bet is to have the mother give you custody. If you can take care of the child for her often, she may just decide that she likes having her free time. At this point, until you have more proof, I suggest you work with the mother instead of against her.
One more thing--If you ever get child protective services involved, remember that at that moment you have in essence, terminated your visitations with the child. The mother will no doubt stop letting you see her. I did some homework online, and Indiana has no grandparent rights. Another reason that I suggest that you work with the mother, stealthily ask the child questions, and only get the state agency involved once you have something firm that is some kind of definite abuse.
What I'm saying here is that if this case goes to court, it will be the state agency child protective services representing the state of Indiana, and the case will be "Indiana vs. _____(insert your step-daughter's name).
See how you are taken out of the equation?
Good luck.
Hmm, that certainly makes it fuzzier. Keep in mind that taking a child from it's rightful and legal guardian -- no matter how bad she is -- and taking the kid across state lines is a felony and equals many years in Club Fed.
That being said, I think now you have a much greater chance of getting custody, especially with the lawsuit and the dog-mauling bit. You have fewer rights than your wife, as the steppgrandparent, but if you and your wife appeal for custody of the child together that should eliminate that.
I think you have a great case, you should get a lawyer asap.
Go here and ask.Lot's of attorneys that will give you advice
http://forum.freeadvice.com/
You have not custodial rights to this child. The mother I assume has not been determined to be unfit, and her custodial rights have not been termiinated by a court. Your perception of the mother may or may not be accurate, but even if it is, without court intervention, you cannot do anything about it. Even if you were her natural parent, you would have no standing to act on this. Now if you feel the child is legitimately in danger, you could report this to DCYS (youth services) and have them monitor or investigate the situation. If there is a determination that she is an unfit mother, it's POSSIBLE that you could get custody as foster parents or guardians. But based upon the facts you gave...even including the dog incident...it is highly unlikely.
Has Child Protective Services (aka Social Services) ever been involved? If you truly believe the child is in danger or has been abused, abandoned or neglected, you need to call the abuse hotline in the state the child lives in. However, please do not call the abuse hotline out of anger or retribution, it is truly a horrible thing to accuse someone of child abuse if they are innocent. It can cause heartache not only for the parent, but for the child as well.
Having an unstructured lifestyle, having low moral standards, or being "low class" do not constitute child abuse, but inadequately supervising a small child, especially if it resulted in injury to the child, certainly does. Once the hotline has been contacted, an investigation will occur which could take several months to complete. The child will be interviewed, as well as the parents and others who have contact with the family. The outcome can range from nothing happening to criminal charges being filed against the mother. The child could be placed in foster care if a suitable relative or family friend cannot take custody--and don't just think that they will give the child to you automatically, there is an extensive background check process. Unless there are verified findings of abuse, neglect or abandonment, it's not likely that you will win custody of the child in court. Judges don't like to take children from their parents unless it's absolutely necessary.
Flushing Quran vs. Crucifix in glass of urine?
Which one is a hate crime and which one is art.
I'm confused. Please explain the difference.could it be that all Americans paid with our taxes( through the endowments to the arts) for the crucifix in the glass of urine?
Answers:
Neither are justified as well as neither is a hate crime. Both are desecration of a religion and cannot be tolerated. Punishment should fit the crime. The cross and the urine is not a freedom of expression issue since it does insight another group of people.
Well, flushing the Koran is usually done as a "f*** you!" to a Muslim, which sounds hateful to me. The crucifix in urine (called "P**s Christ") was, IMHO, a really bad idea, and one that hasn't been forgotten since 1989 when the guy did it, but it was done to make people think, not to hurt people (even if he was wrong). So I'd go with flushing being closer to a hate crime (except that it's not a crime), and the crucifix art just being stupid and wrong-headed.
An art critic who's also a nun said of the crucifix work that it represents: ""what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents."
Why do you not use your bible or the star of david.
It's meant to say go to h ell with religions
There is an interesting issue here.
The piss Christ is meant to be art. That is it is meant to make a comment, and inspire emotional and intellectual reaction. The fact that many people are upset by it is why it is art.
Flushing the Quran (Koran) in an art gallery is different from doing it in an one to one situation. We don't let prison guards call people *******, and would most police would be fired if they interregated someone by pissing on someone's bible.
Descecrating the Quran (Koran) is a difficult issue. In fact it is part of a very long history and discriminatory representations of islamic culture.
For most people, mention the history of tolerance, charity and so on of the Islamic faith and they will think I am mad. Mention the intolerance that is also part of Islam, they will quickly agree.
Tolerance of Islam is something that is being fought for by many people. There is a difficult line here, and we will never be easily able to define it.
My own view is that we must learn to be more tolerant of Islam and be sensitive in our representations. However, in that context of cultural understanding we will be able to also talk and discuss the negative aspects of the Islamic faith.
You were listening to "The Savage Nation" last night weren't you?
I'm confused. Please explain the difference.could it be that all Americans paid with our taxes( through the endowments to the arts) for the crucifix in the glass of urine?
Answers:
Neither are justified as well as neither is a hate crime. Both are desecration of a religion and cannot be tolerated. Punishment should fit the crime. The cross and the urine is not a freedom of expression issue since it does insight another group of people.
Well, flushing the Koran is usually done as a "f*** you!" to a Muslim, which sounds hateful to me. The crucifix in urine (called "P**s Christ") was, IMHO, a really bad idea, and one that hasn't been forgotten since 1989 when the guy did it, but it was done to make people think, not to hurt people (even if he was wrong). So I'd go with flushing being closer to a hate crime (except that it's not a crime), and the crucifix art just being stupid and wrong-headed.
An art critic who's also a nun said of the crucifix work that it represents: ""what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents."
Why do you not use your bible or the star of david.
It's meant to say go to h ell with religions
There is an interesting issue here.
The piss Christ is meant to be art. That is it is meant to make a comment, and inspire emotional and intellectual reaction. The fact that many people are upset by it is why it is art.
Flushing the Quran (Koran) in an art gallery is different from doing it in an one to one situation. We don't let prison guards call people *******, and would most police would be fired if they interregated someone by pissing on someone's bible.
Descecrating the Quran (Koran) is a difficult issue. In fact it is part of a very long history and discriminatory representations of islamic culture.
For most people, mention the history of tolerance, charity and so on of the Islamic faith and they will think I am mad. Mention the intolerance that is also part of Islam, they will quickly agree.
Tolerance of Islam is something that is being fought for by many people. There is a difficult line here, and we will never be easily able to define it.
My own view is that we must learn to be more tolerant of Islam and be sensitive in our representations. However, in that context of cultural understanding we will be able to also talk and discuss the negative aspects of the Islamic faith.
You were listening to "The Savage Nation" last night weren't you?
Florida renter/tenant laws?
I rent a house and found out that my a/c is inefficient. It is a 20 year old unit and is costing me almost 400 dollars a month. It is cooling the house but the energy costs are not affordabe. is my landlord required to fix or replace is due to the inefficiency causing such high energy costs? If so where can I find this law in black and white.
Answers:
Your pretty much s.o.l. Sorry. Landlord in Florida. However, here's a hint - can you claim that the unit "is making you sick." It sounds like your ducts are clogged and need to be blown out. This is about a 200.00 procedure . . . You'll be a lot better off if you claim "allergic reaction" than repair.
No, your landlord would only be required to repair the unit if it failed, not improve the unit's performance.
If it breaks then they would be required to fix it.
Could you possibly buy yourself an energy efficient window-unit or one of those A/C's that sits inside the room? I bet it would save you money in the long run.
All it needs to do is cool the room. A 20 year old unit will not last forever and the landlord will have to replace it with no less than a 13 seer unit per EPA mandate. So you can live with it and hope it fails soon, or move.
Answers:
Your pretty much s.o.l. Sorry. Landlord in Florida. However, here's a hint - can you claim that the unit "is making you sick." It sounds like your ducts are clogged and need to be blown out. This is about a 200.00 procedure . . . You'll be a lot better off if you claim "allergic reaction" than repair.
No, your landlord would only be required to repair the unit if it failed, not improve the unit's performance.
If it breaks then they would be required to fix it.
Could you possibly buy yourself an energy efficient window-unit or one of those A/C's that sits inside the room? I bet it would save you money in the long run.
All it needs to do is cool the room. A 20 year old unit will not last forever and the landlord will have to replace it with no less than a 13 seer unit per EPA mandate. So you can live with it and hope it fails soon, or move.
Florida Probate question?
How long does a will stay in probate?
Answers:
Until the estate is closed. Fla. law requires publication of a notice to creditors and interested parties who have 90 days (actually 93 in practice) to file claims. Depending on the county there is about a 10 day lead time from filing the petition until the local newspaper can publish notice. If any claims are filed or any objections are made to any proceeding then they must be resolved before trhe estate may be closed. If there are any unpaid bills they must be resolved. If there is any property tro be sold or any trusts that must be opened for minor benfiiaries, that must be done. Receipts from any benficiaries must be filed. And if estate taxes are due they must be paid and the IRS clearance letter must be filed. Anything else that must be done to wind up the deceased's affairs must also be completed, however long it takes.
So, assuming eveything can be done in within the publication period, there is a minimum of 93 days from the date of the first publication %26 about 10 days lead time == or about 103 days more or less.
Small estates, consisting mainly of exempt assets under Fla. homestead law, or estates of persons dead more than two years (the statute of limitations for claims against the deceased) can often be wound up in shorter periods.
It depends on the size of the estate . . . as well as the efficiency of the executor. My mother-in-law's estate took about 15 months.
Answers:
Until the estate is closed. Fla. law requires publication of a notice to creditors and interested parties who have 90 days (actually 93 in practice) to file claims. Depending on the county there is about a 10 day lead time from filing the petition until the local newspaper can publish notice. If any claims are filed or any objections are made to any proceeding then they must be resolved before trhe estate may be closed. If there are any unpaid bills they must be resolved. If there is any property tro be sold or any trusts that must be opened for minor benfiiaries, that must be done. Receipts from any benficiaries must be filed. And if estate taxes are due they must be paid and the IRS clearance letter must be filed. Anything else that must be done to wind up the deceased's affairs must also be completed, however long it takes.
So, assuming eveything can be done in within the publication period, there is a minimum of 93 days from the date of the first publication %26 about 10 days lead time == or about 103 days more or less.
Small estates, consisting mainly of exempt assets under Fla. homestead law, or estates of persons dead more than two years (the statute of limitations for claims against the deceased) can often be wound up in shorter periods.
It depends on the size of the estate . . . as well as the efficiency of the executor. My mother-in-law's estate took about 15 months.
Florida Child Labor Laws, what can children under 14 years of age do?
I just want to know what children in florida can have a job under 14, around the 10-12 age group
Answers:
According to Florida Labor Law 450.021 minors of any age can be hired, but "No person 17 years old or younger, whether or not such person's disabilities of nonage have been removed by marriage or otherwise, shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in any place where alcoholic beverages are sold at retail, except as provided in s. 562.13. "
Federal Law is still inforced in this matter as well though(it governs all states) which states: Youths 14-15 yo can work outside of school hours in non-manufacturing, non-mining, and non-hazardous jobs under these conditions; no more than 3 hours on a school day or 18 hours in a school week, or 8 hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours on a non-school week.
Most employers though will not hire you until your 16yo so be prepared.
Not unless they cut lawns, help neighbors for money. In some staes they can get a work permit at 14. Check it out.
Babysit, mow lawns, help neighbors with chores, rake leaves, tutor younger children.
Answers:
According to Florida Labor Law 450.021 minors of any age can be hired, but "No person 17 years old or younger, whether or not such person's disabilities of nonage have been removed by marriage or otherwise, shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in any place where alcoholic beverages are sold at retail, except as provided in s. 562.13. "
Federal Law is still inforced in this matter as well though(it governs all states) which states: Youths 14-15 yo can work outside of school hours in non-manufacturing, non-mining, and non-hazardous jobs under these conditions; no more than 3 hours on a school day or 18 hours in a school week, or 8 hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours on a non-school week.
Most employers though will not hire you until your 16yo so be prepared.
Not unless they cut lawns, help neighbors for money. In some staes they can get a work permit at 14. Check it out.
Babysit, mow lawns, help neighbors with chores, rake leaves, tutor younger children.
Flooding and mold in apartment. Who covers moving cost?
My apartment has flooded several times in the last 4 months that I have lived in it and I started having asthma problems almost immediately after moving in. I have suspected mold, and the property manager has had the carpets cleaned and all that several times. The last flooding was monday night and was enough to make my and my husband feel sure that we needed to move (we also have a 15 month old and I am 20 weeks pregnant). We talked to the property manager and they agreed to move us to another unit in a different building that is not a ground level unit for the same rent. We find this acceptable. It was going to take about a week for the unit to be ready. They told us they would give us a $200 credit for moving costs, but I just got a estimate for $300-$400 depending on the hours (not including tip). Is it reasonable for us to expect them to cover the full moving costs?
Answers:
Read what your renter's insurance covers ... mine covers two things mainly
* liability in case my water bed springs a leak
* value of my property in case of damage from a storm, or theft, or other thing beyond my control
Talk to the landlord about your moving expenses %26 what was offered ... he may be able to help in other ways than financial.
There is also the issue of where the flooding is coming from ... the insurance for the place causing the flooding ... might be landlord, might be some other tenant.
Read the lease Agreement
If the flood was caused by nature, they have no obligation to help you with the moving costs, if it was due to flooding caused by their plumbing they dont have any obligation to help with your moving costs, when you rent you should purchase renter's insurance to cover for your items... Florida Law.
Check your lease, but you're probably stuck with it. Do you not have friends who can help? I've done a lot of moving around in my life, and I've never hired movers - neither did my parents when I was growing up. Don't spend the dough at all if you don't have to - except maybe a little to rent a truck if no one has one.
****Your renter's insurance should cover any belongings you need to replace if they were ruined by the flood. That's typically all it's for, as the property owner is responsible for the building, but not for a tenant's possessions.
Answers:
Read what your renter's insurance covers ... mine covers two things mainly
* liability in case my water bed springs a leak
* value of my property in case of damage from a storm, or theft, or other thing beyond my control
Talk to the landlord about your moving expenses %26 what was offered ... he may be able to help in other ways than financial.
There is also the issue of where the flooding is coming from ... the insurance for the place causing the flooding ... might be landlord, might be some other tenant.
Read the lease Agreement
If the flood was caused by nature, they have no obligation to help you with the moving costs, if it was due to flooding caused by their plumbing they dont have any obligation to help with your moving costs, when you rent you should purchase renter's insurance to cover for your items... Florida Law.
Check your lease, but you're probably stuck with it. Do you not have friends who can help? I've done a lot of moving around in my life, and I've never hired movers - neither did my parents when I was growing up. Don't spend the dough at all if you don't have to - except maybe a little to rent a truck if no one has one.
****Your renter's insurance should cover any belongings you need to replace if they were ruined by the flood. That's typically all it's for, as the property owner is responsible for the building, but not for a tenant's possessions.
Flat - leave and licence?
dear Sir/Madam
I gave my flat on leave and licence basis for 11 months, earlier society was charging as maintenance of rs.601 p.m., now society sent maintenance charges rs.1200 p.m.,
my society is located at borivali east, mumbai 400 066-maharashtra-india, this is a co-op hsg. society ltd..
now i need to know that by LAW what is the proper way to charge to a flat owner.
before i gave my flat on leave %26 license basis , I use to get following maintenace charges.
rs 50 as municipal tax
rs.6 as sinking fund
rs.30 as association subscrption
rs.360 as maintenance %26 service charges
rs.155 as water charges
rs.601 - Total
now how much society should charge as per above maintenance details.
Please advice
Thank you.
Answers:
if there is clause in your agreement that you have to bear the whole cooprative charges, you can not force your landlord. The only way is to negotiate tactfully with him and hope for good.
Consult the Municipal Corporation for more details on this....
Maintenance charges on flat etc are to be collected by the society or flat owners association etc as per the bye laws of the society. If there is any deviation from it, you can demand explanation.
As can be seen from your question many of the charges are service charges, like maintenance, water charges, association subscription etc. The maintenance and water charges are normally to be borne by those who are using the flat. In your case, since you have given it for rent, these charges must have included in the rent. Municipal tax is statutory one, hence is to be paid.
You are therefore advised to verify with your society why the increase in the charges. There may be a rise in all these charges. If you feel that these charges are exorbitant and there is no reason to increase the charges, you can raise your voice against such action.
I gave my flat on leave and licence basis for 11 months, earlier society was charging as maintenance of rs.601 p.m., now society sent maintenance charges rs.1200 p.m.,
my society is located at borivali east, mumbai 400 066-maharashtra-india, this is a co-op hsg. society ltd..
now i need to know that by LAW what is the proper way to charge to a flat owner.
before i gave my flat on leave %26 license basis , I use to get following maintenace charges.
rs 50 as municipal tax
rs.6 as sinking fund
rs.30 as association subscrption
rs.360 as maintenance %26 service charges
rs.155 as water charges
rs.601 - Total
now how much society should charge as per above maintenance details.
Please advice
Thank you.
Answers:
if there is clause in your agreement that you have to bear the whole cooprative charges, you can not force your landlord. The only way is to negotiate tactfully with him and hope for good.
Consult the Municipal Corporation for more details on this....
Maintenance charges on flat etc are to be collected by the society or flat owners association etc as per the bye laws of the society. If there is any deviation from it, you can demand explanation.
As can be seen from your question many of the charges are service charges, like maintenance, water charges, association subscription etc. The maintenance and water charges are normally to be borne by those who are using the flat. In your case, since you have given it for rent, these charges must have included in the rent. Municipal tax is statutory one, hence is to be paid.
You are therefore advised to verify with your society why the increase in the charges. There may be a rise in all these charges. If you feel that these charges are exorbitant and there is no reason to increase the charges, you can raise your voice against such action.
Flag disposal?
how or where do you dispose of a flag? my husband and i have a flag in our front yard. we have two that have become to frayed and faded to be displayed. how do you dispose of them properly????
Answers:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." (Seem ironic) The best way to do this is to bring it to the VFW.
See the site below for full informatioin on flag disposal including info on a proper ceremony. (Scroll down to the FAQ section and click on the link for a Recommended Ceremony.
Look up a VFW Hall in your area. (Veterans of Foreign Wars) They accept Flags from the public that they will dispose of in a Ceremony. Some Fire Stations are also drop off points for the disposal of flags.
The easiest way is to take them to a local veterans' Post and let them do it when they have their next flag disposal ceremony.
It is supposed to be burned with respect. That's hard to do because people might think you're protesting something.
Believe it or not, you burn it, and bury it. As I recall, you cut out the blue field of starts and burn that, and bury the striped portion.
To be honest, I think the procedure is stupid and unnecessary. Unless you want to make a big show of disposing of the flag, you could just wad it up in a garbage bag and stick in the garbage, or you could take it to the American Legion, the V.F.W, or a boy scout troop and let them dispose of it.
Answers:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." (Seem ironic) The best way to do this is to bring it to the VFW.
See the site below for full informatioin on flag disposal including info on a proper ceremony. (Scroll down to the FAQ section and click on the link for a Recommended Ceremony.
Look up a VFW Hall in your area. (Veterans of Foreign Wars) They accept Flags from the public that they will dispose of in a Ceremony. Some Fire Stations are also drop off points for the disposal of flags.
The easiest way is to take them to a local veterans' Post and let them do it when they have their next flag disposal ceremony.
It is supposed to be burned with respect. That's hard to do because people might think you're protesting something.
Believe it or not, you burn it, and bury it. As I recall, you cut out the blue field of starts and burn that, and bury the striped portion.
To be honest, I think the procedure is stupid and unnecessary. Unless you want to make a big show of disposing of the flag, you could just wad it up in a garbage bag and stick in the garbage, or you could take it to the American Legion, the V.F.W, or a boy scout troop and let them dispose of it.
First Paris...NOW LINDSAY? What do You think is a fair sentence for her?
Lindasy was arrested again last night and while having a ankle monitor on. This is her second in less than a week. And this is 2 DUIs and possession of coke. After Paris was dealt with what will Lindsay get or deserve?
Answers:
Let's break it down. California has "diversion" for 1st time drug offenders. Mere possession of recreational amount of cocaine: That's summer camp with no criminal penalty for walking out. Second DUI (driving with a blood alcohol volume over .08%) in six months. That is a felony. It should buy her 6 months or so in jail. But she will get sent to LA County jail, same as the other bim Paris Hilton. The Sheriff will send her home in a couple of weeks. She'll be washing the nosefuls down with Grey Goose in no time. Then it's back into her Mercedes for a little high speed chasing of her personal assistant's mom for getting her to quit working for her. At some point she will either bottom out, get the message that she is a drunk and an addict or she will die. She, Paris and Britney have all stayed in revolving door private rehab facilities with quicky 21 day programs. Any recovering drunk will tell you that it is a day at a time lifetime commitment. That means meetings every day or so forever.
She should get what anyone else would, but she won't. that's no surprise to anyone.
This one should get her about 6 months to a year. Monkey see, monkey do.
how about a good spanking, loss of allowance, and a month in a lock down unit of a maximum security prison. Might make an impression on them and the rest of the money makes right crowd.
5 million years w/ the fuzz but then again everyone would think that the government is just making a statement that they can punish stars properly
I'll be her personal monitor... :-)
sigh...she'll get special treatment, as usual.
2 Years in a real prison
I say the appropriate sentence would be to hanger her from a tree and set it afire.
we dont need that dumb moron using the fan's money to buy crack, expensive cars, then go to jail for DUI.
Both are a waste of skin, spoiled kids. If it was anyone else they would be charged hard, but she will get a slap on the wrist, its almost like its a joke to them.
Have money will travel
DUI AND COKE no less than TEN YEARS.. and i would have put PARIS there for that AS WELL... Just think if when there driving with drink in them and they KNOCK DOWN AND KILL YOUR KID would you be looking for any less?? don't forget are kids look up to them so let the law stand up to them and put the away... if not what are you teaching them.
Possession of coke is 3 years minimum I think, but she won't spend more than . 45 days in jail, (sentenced) and 20 actual.
Who gives a rolling crapola about some underage bubblehead who drinks too much and does cocaine?
Several months at least of jail time.
Lock 'em all up and lock up media persons who insist on glorifying these idiots.
Answers:
Let's break it down. California has "diversion" for 1st time drug offenders. Mere possession of recreational amount of cocaine: That's summer camp with no criminal penalty for walking out. Second DUI (driving with a blood alcohol volume over .08%) in six months. That is a felony. It should buy her 6 months or so in jail. But she will get sent to LA County jail, same as the other bim Paris Hilton. The Sheriff will send her home in a couple of weeks. She'll be washing the nosefuls down with Grey Goose in no time. Then it's back into her Mercedes for a little high speed chasing of her personal assistant's mom for getting her to quit working for her. At some point she will either bottom out, get the message that she is a drunk and an addict or she will die. She, Paris and Britney have all stayed in revolving door private rehab facilities with quicky 21 day programs. Any recovering drunk will tell you that it is a day at a time lifetime commitment. That means meetings every day or so forever.
She should get what anyone else would, but she won't. that's no surprise to anyone.
This one should get her about 6 months to a year. Monkey see, monkey do.
how about a good spanking, loss of allowance, and a month in a lock down unit of a maximum security prison. Might make an impression on them and the rest of the money makes right crowd.
5 million years w/ the fuzz but then again everyone would think that the government is just making a statement that they can punish stars properly
I'll be her personal monitor... :-)
sigh...she'll get special treatment, as usual.
2 Years in a real prison
I say the appropriate sentence would be to hanger her from a tree and set it afire.
we dont need that dumb moron using the fan's money to buy crack, expensive cars, then go to jail for DUI.
Both are a waste of skin, spoiled kids. If it was anyone else they would be charged hard, but she will get a slap on the wrist, its almost like its a joke to them.
Have money will travel
DUI AND COKE no less than TEN YEARS.. and i would have put PARIS there for that AS WELL... Just think if when there driving with drink in them and they KNOCK DOWN AND KILL YOUR KID would you be looking for any less?? don't forget are kids look up to them so let the law stand up to them and put the away... if not what are you teaching them.
Possession of coke is 3 years minimum I think, but she won't spend more than . 45 days in jail, (sentenced) and 20 actual.
Who gives a rolling crapola about some underage bubblehead who drinks too much and does cocaine?
Several months at least of jail time.
Lock 'em all up and lock up media persons who insist on glorifying these idiots.
First it was the savings and loan scandal we lost billions, then it was the tech bubble of the late 90's,?
again, people lost hundreds of billions or more, then it was the Enron/ Worldcom/ Global Crossing/ Adelphia/ etc. corporate scandals, again people lost tens of billions, now it's the subprime mortgage thing. Does anyone else see a pattern here, with people losing overall trillions of dollars, I for one wonder where that money went, and is this all a well thought out and orchestrated effort by individuals and corporations to legally ( at least for the most part ) pick the pockets of Americans?. Also the things we're seeing from China and the fact that big business seems to have decided that we should eat poisoned food from China and other places because they don't want us to know where this stuff comes from and are doing everything in their power to defeat the food labeling laws The question is, is it time to bring back regulation?
Answers:
I have to agree with you
Lots of big investors lost money in all those things you mentioned. Those same investors have been averaging a 15% return for 30 years. If you run a properly diversified portfolio, these things are only small bumps in the road. The one you did not mention was 2002 - everything went down and more wealth was destroyed in that year by legitimate companies than all the "scandals" put together.
yes burdensome regulation, confiscatory taxation, and bureaucratic nitwitery. thats what we need, vote democrat then!
Boy! are we just a ball of confussion, Its a "rolla costa",and we are what we eat. And I was hoping all this was regulated.
China- Well talk to the last guy in China in charge of product safety. OOPS you can't because he is dead.
China has the Olympics in 08. They were working their tail off to improve their image.
Enron and dotcoms were the golden children and people didn't do their homework.
Slow steady investment works.
Those who think they are going to get rich overnight won't .
It takes hard work and with the stock market paying attention.
People want to sit back and let it come to them.
That is not life.
You have to earn money the old fashion way.
YOU HAVE TO EARN IT!
There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_f...
------------------------------
鈥楩rauds-R-Us鈥?br>
The Bush Family Saga
Part II - Part I Here
The Bush-Enron Connection
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
------------------------------...
all the things you mention are symptoms of greed in either individual or collective cases.
since greed was mentioned as a sin back in Torah times, it looks like all the moralizing of all the religions on earth since then hasn't yet stamped it out. Well, maybe each person has to learn the old fashioned way about being greedy and the inevitable end you get if you are.
***
more seriously, there is a great book titled "The Crowd", now available for free on the internet because it is so old, which shows the various stages and the attitudes that cause them in fads and market bubbles.
Give it a read. Then ask yourself when you've ever thought or felt the way the author depicts. Priceless self-knowledge.
:-)
Answers:
I have to agree with you
Lots of big investors lost money in all those things you mentioned. Those same investors have been averaging a 15% return for 30 years. If you run a properly diversified portfolio, these things are only small bumps in the road. The one you did not mention was 2002 - everything went down and more wealth was destroyed in that year by legitimate companies than all the "scandals" put together.
yes burdensome regulation, confiscatory taxation, and bureaucratic nitwitery. thats what we need, vote democrat then!
Boy! are we just a ball of confussion, Its a "rolla costa",and we are what we eat. And I was hoping all this was regulated.
China- Well talk to the last guy in China in charge of product safety. OOPS you can't because he is dead.
China has the Olympics in 08. They were working their tail off to improve their image.
Enron and dotcoms were the golden children and people didn't do their homework.
Slow steady investment works.
Those who think they are going to get rich overnight won't .
It takes hard work and with the stock market paying attention.
People want to sit back and let it come to them.
That is not life.
You have to earn money the old fashion way.
YOU HAVE TO EARN IT!
There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_f...
------------------------------
鈥楩rauds-R-Us鈥?br>
The Bush Family Saga
Part II - Part I Here
The Bush-Enron Connection
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
------------------------------...
all the things you mention are symptoms of greed in either individual or collective cases.
since greed was mentioned as a sin back in Torah times, it looks like all the moralizing of all the religions on earth since then hasn't yet stamped it out. Well, maybe each person has to learn the old fashioned way about being greedy and the inevitable end you get if you are.
***
more seriously, there is a great book titled "The Crowd", now available for free on the internet because it is so old, which shows the various stages and the attitudes that cause them in fads and market bubbles.
Give it a read. Then ask yourself when you've ever thought or felt the way the author depicts. Priceless self-knowledge.
:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)