Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why? If they force you, they owe you financial reparations. If they don't force you, your career is just fine.Oh bullshit...now you're just asking like a desperate progressive. A legal contract is legally binding. Having it in writing changes everything. They would be legally bound by it and their hands would be tied.And getting it in writing does not change anything. If the company needs you somewhere, you go or you suffer the consequences.
I did not say they would not be legally bound. But if the company needs you to transfer, and you don't, your career could be shot.
Furthermore - who cares? If your career is sooooooo important - then make the choice to go. If your family is more important to you - then make the choice to stay. What is the problem?
They were never denied that "choice". Ever. What they were denied was government acknowledging their idea of a new form of marriage.Is that what gays were asking for: choice to marry ?Yep. That's what America is all about - choice. You nailed it. They have the choice. They also had the choice in their "career" to get it in writing before accepting a job that they could not be transferred unless they agreed to it (just like the no trade clauses that professional athletes will sometimes demand in their contracts).Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.
Choice is a beautiful thing WinterBorn.
The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....
Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.
Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide
How about post roads? Veteran's benefits?Bingo!If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.
The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.
The military is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. As far as "postal roads" - there is no such thing. There are only roads. None are dedicated to the U.S. Post Office. In addition, the U.S. Post Office existed and flourished for centuries before the first roads were ever built. Vehicles operate just fine on dirt and gravel. Trust me - I've done it.How about post roads? Veteran's benefits?Bingo!If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.
The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.
Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."The military is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. As far as "postal roads" - there is no such thing. There are only roads. None are dedicated to the U.S. Post Office. In addition, the U.S. Post Office existed and flourished for centuries before the first roads were ever built. Vehicles operate just fine on dirt and gravel. Trust me - I've done it.How about post roads? Veteran's benefits?Bingo!If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.
The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.
Wrong. We "gave up" on state sovereignty because Lincoln invaded and destroyed the states that refused to give up that principleLol, nearly every constitutional professor in this country would disagree with you., You don't know shit about the constitution! The president has had executive power since washington as our government has three equal branches of government. What this means is the president also has some power.
You honestly think the president shouldn't have power? lol The federal government always had power and that is why we gave up on the original bs of everything being at the state level.
Your idea of constitutional government is one where the corporate sector runs everything without regulations or human rights. It is ugly and it is bs.
Yes Bripat....little Matthew there really is that stupid. He has no idea what Executive Orders are or what they are actually for. The ultimate irony of course is that the state run education failed him so bad, he's not even educated enough to know how badly the state run education failed him. Thus, he continues to advocate for more government.Wrong. We "gave up" on state sovereignty because Lincoln invaded and destroyed the states that refused to give up that principleLol, nearly every constitutional professor in this country would disagree with you., You don't know shit about the constitution! The president has had executive power since washington as our government has three equal branches of government. What this means is the president also has some power.
You honestly think the president shouldn't have power? lol The federal government always had power and that is why we gave up on the original bs of everything being at the state level.
Your idea of constitutional government is one where the corporate sector runs everything without regulations or human rights. It is ugly and it is bs.
It is sort of important that we get the comments on the Constitution correct, there might be children reading this.Then it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. What's the problem?Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."
You still haven't mentioned why you brought it up. Can the children reading this assume at this point that you're just trying to be argumentative? That you have no point behind it?It is sort of important that we get the comments on the Constitution correct, there might be children reading this.Then it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. What's the problem?Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."
Come on C_Clayton_Jones, tell us all again how we are currently operating under "constitutional government", you tool. Which part of the constitution permits the federal government to issue mass warrants without even knowing who is the target of the warrant? How could one have probable cause if they can't even provide the issuing judge names, devices, etc.?!?
In the court document filed earlier this year, federal prosecutors in California argued that a warrant for a mass finger-unlocking was constitutionally sound even though “the government does not know ahead of time the identity of every digital device or every fingerprint (or indeed, every other piece of evidence) that it will find in the search” because “it has demonstrated probable cause that evidence may exist at the search location.”
“They want the ability to get a warrant on the assumption that they will learn more after they have a warrant,” Medvin told Forbes. “This would be an unbelievably audacious abuse of power if it were permitted.”
Feds Claim They Can Enter a House and Demand Fingerprints to Unlock Everyone's Phones
I do.Why don't you ever complain about restoring Constitutional Government when your side controls the White House?
I vehemently opposed it then and I vehemently oppose it now.Where were you during Bush's first foray into Wire Tapping, which was deemed unconstitutional.
Agreed.If you NEVER hold your side accountable, than people will see you are pimping the Constitution as a partisan weapon.
Agreed again. Clearly you have no idea who you're talking to.Have enough respect for the Constitution to hold your side accountable, and then we will trust that you know what you're talking about. Otherwise you seem like a pure partisan who cares more about your political party than the Constitution. Have the courage to respect the Constitution over dear leader.
For the record - I'm doing it right now Londoner. Post #299. Republicans own the White House, the House, and the Senate. And I'm complaining about unconstitutional government. Just as I have in the past. Just as I will again in the future.Why don't you ever complain about restoring Constitutional Government when your side controls the White House?
