Fuck its silent in here.......

[Brownie]

http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?

[CBStew]

*JAILS & NURSING HOMES*

*Let's put the seniors in jail*

*and the criminals in nursing homes.*

*This would correct two things at once:

*A.**SENIORS IN JAIL:*

*1.*Seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.
*2.*They would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and
medical treatment, wheel chairs, etc.
*3.*They would receive money instead of having to pay it out.
*4.*They would have constant video monitoring, so they would be
helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance*.*
*5.*Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be
ironed and returned to them.
*6.*A guard would check on them every 20 minutes.
*7.*All meals and snacks would be brought to them
*8.*They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
*9.*They would have access to a library, weight/fitness room,
spiritual counseling, a pool and education.
*10.*Free admission to in-house concerts by nationally recognized
entertainment artists.
*11.*Simple clothing - i.e. shoes, slippers, PJ's - and legal aid
would be free, upon request.
*12.*There would be private, secure rooms provided for all with an
outdoor exercise yard complete with gardens.
*13.*Each senior would have a P.C., T.V., phone and radio in their
room at no cost.
*14.*They would receive daily phone calls.
*15.*There would be a board of directors to hear any complaints and
the ACLU would fight for their rights and protection.
*16.*The guards would have a code of conduct to be strictly adhered
to, with attorneys available, at no charge to protect the seniors
and their families from abuse or neglect.

*B**. **And for the Criminals (in Nursing Homes)*

*1.*They would receive cold food.
*2.* They would be left alone and unsupervised.
*3.* They would receive showers once a week.
*4.* They would live in tiny rooms, for which they would have to pay
$5,000 per month.
*5.*They would have no hope of ever getting out.
Sounds like justice to me!

[Bort]

http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?

Frankly, I'd take prison over retiring to Myrtle Beach.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?

Frankly, I'd take prison over retiring to Myrtle Beach.

I bet you would, Mr. Fabulous.

[Gilgamesh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

[Quality Start Machine]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

[morpheus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

The law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

[Gilgamesh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

The law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, those are the only three conditions for establishing retaliation.  Wow.  I'm so happy.  Maybe I don't need to work for the Board anymore, the Washington Post has it down pat.

[morpheus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

Employers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

The law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, those are the only three conditions for establishing retaliation.  Wow.  I'm so happy.  Maybe I don't need to work for the Board anymore, the Washington Post has it down pat.

Maybe I should ask a lawyer?  [/Gilhurt]

[morpheus]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

DPD.  In my rush to pokestick Gil I missed this one.  Well done, TEC.

[CT III]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

The NLRB is quashing corporate America's First Amendment right to counter the propaganda of union interlopers with slick and informative training videos?

I thought you supported freedom, Gil.

[R-V]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it, he supports some rights for teh gheys, and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.

[Gilgamesh]

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it, he supports some rights for teh gheys, and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.

It doesn't help when his own campaign can't spell his name right: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/huntsman-campaign-launch-begins-day-with-misspelling-of-his-own-name.html

"Members of the media were handed a press pass that read 'John Huntsman for President' -- adding an unnecessary H in the candidate's first name."