|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2011 9:57:05 GMT -5
1.3 or even 1.4. If they really want you but don't want to pay as much they will at least make you a lower offer so asking for more is not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2011 22:07:00 GMT -5
Jung Test Results
Extroverted (E) 51.61% Introverted (I) 48.39% Sensing (S) 60.61% Intuitive (N) 39.39% Thinking (T) 61.76% Feeling (F) 38.24% Perceiving (P) 59.38% Judging (J) 40.63%
Your type is: ESTP
ESTP - "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 4.3% of total population.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2011 15:56:52 GMT -5
Oh, and being discharged for being crazy is challenging at best. Yes it is, just ask Corporal Klinger...
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 15, 2011 15:08:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 15, 2011 13:45:15 GMT -5
So, does this imply that not paying the penalty would fall under the same enforcement guidelines as non-payment of taxes? As I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 15, 2011 13:08:51 GMT -5
Best part of the "mandate" is that if you don't pay the tax it's not punishable The law states that there will no enforcement of penalties for those who fail to pay it Where is that found? What I find is... ‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.— An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month. ‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—øReplaced by section 10106(b)¿ If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c). ‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month. ‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month— ‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or ‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 14, 2011 17:06:54 GMT -5
Why do I have the feeling it will be a 5-4 decision with Kennedy deciding the case? ...because that is very likely to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 13, 2011 12:00:24 GMT -5
I'm going to say that this person should not do it. I'm not going to pretend to understand how much a couple wants their own child, but there are simple better options. Adoption being the main one.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 6, 2011 19:25:43 GMT -5
Faith and trust run in the same vein. Some could even say that faith is merely trust in ones beliefs.
Zachski what you said makes perfect sense, and I think you maybe dead on.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 6, 2011 19:08:19 GMT -5
All advertising should be banned, excepting only logos on the actual product or premesis. Agreed, so long as there is a carve out for commercials during the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 4, 2011 10:06:27 GMT -5
It wasn't created as a response to sexism in language, it was created because there are people for whom the male-female binary does not apply and deserve a set of pronouns. And the ambiguity of "they" shows that it is not a "perfectly-good alternative" as it can hinder communication due to the listener not being able to distinguish between if the speaker is talking about a single person or many people. To use an example: "They're in Minneapolis." "Zie's in Minneapolis." How many people is the first statement talking about, and how about the second? ....and unless you are in the very small group who understand those new pronouns you will cause even more confusion. Besides, an example like you are giving is almost always going to have some context around it.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 4, 2011 9:36:13 GMT -5
Kids don't have free speech. Perhaps they should.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 4, 2011 7:36:30 GMT -5
Depends what you mean by 'trouble'. If 'trouble' means shouted at, that's no problem- because the opinion is nonsense and offensive. No, I'm not taking about being shouted at. I would fully expect and hope that anyone that heard that opinion would quickly and vigorously tell that person they were a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 4, 2011 6:57:52 GMT -5
Funny, a kid saying that blacks were better off as slaves would be in deep shit, but it's perfectly okay to say that gays should be stoned to death. How does this make sense again? I find it an affront to free speech that the kid making the comment about black would get into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 1, 2011 20:54:47 GMT -5
What's the thinking behind this? Why do you want to deter higher-education? I don't. I think it will teach people what manual labor is like, so they really want to better themselves. Plus it forces them to work, and hopefully save money for school so they will not have as much debt. I love the idea of a bunch of reenactors and historians firing off ye olde mufketf in a big line. Yes, but they do that anyways. These are controversial at all! You have way more unreasonable beliefs than these. The thread was about unpopular beliefs. My beliefs that you find unreasonable are not wholly unpopular.
|
|