Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

links to the COPYRIGHT LAWS

Posted By: Mrs. Bridger on 2009-03-16
In Reply to: No bridger, you don't provide the links every time. That's - Aunt Louise

xx


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    Copyright laws forbid it. Nothing to do with the length. nm
    .
    to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
    nm
    Rubs already hold copyright on lockstep.
    Did you find your magic 8 ball under the bed this morning?
    Tax laws are always about
    Secondary effects such as the impact on jobs, if any, are much more debatable, are often very difficult to prove and take much longer to materialize.

    As I posted on the Company Board in a similar thread, these issues are very complex and this administration has made them even more difficult to determine by cleverly lumping "jobs saved" (which can never be proven because you have to prove a negative hypothesis - i.e., that a job was not lost that would have been lost if not for their programs) with "jobs created", and "jobs created" was already hard enough to prove anyway.

    As I also said, the "other side of the coin" is that there was obviously some reason that the tax breaks were created in the first place. In this case, the main reason was that it would allow US companies to compete globally with foreign companies that enjoy low labor costs.

    There will obviously be ways for companies to counter these proposed tax changes (which face stiff opposition in Congress) - including, if necessary, simply moving their entire operations to another country as some are already thinking of doing.

    Every law that Congress passes has unintended consequences. These usually show up to bite us in the assets.
    This is not about any laws! This is sm
    about Christians trying to have bible study in their own homes which folks have been doing for centuries. If this were any other group, nothing would be said. It is about taking away freedom for Christiasn! I don't care what you say or what your opinion is as to why, Im telling you why, it is Christian persecution! Not religious but Christian.

    If Wiccans or Muslims or anybody else did this it would be fine. I live in a city where there are at least 500 different religions practicing here and the only one that EVER gets picked on are the Christians.

    As far as the Wiccans.......if they aer over there at their own house doing whatever they do, no I am not going to say a word nor am I going to watch and participate. as far as in the nude, if there is a law that says they can be nude in their backyard, there is nothing I can do about that.

    My goodness I know people who have 15-20 people over every week for BRUNCH (why, I don't know) and no one would ever think of saying a word. Bible study where people are sitting in their living rooms discussing God's Holy Word, my goodness what a crime! I just know it is going to cause everyone so much harm!

    What about the families who have teenagers that every single weekend there are more than the magic number of 15 gathered, partying in the front yard? Nobody says anything about that? I wouldn't either unless it got too loud. Its their house they can do what they want.

    People wake up, this has nothing to do with licenses, laws, law breakers, religious persecution or anything else. It is nothing more than CHRISTIAN persecution. Anyone who is a Christian already knows this.

    I assume you are wiccan because you say sometimes "we". That is your business. I am not bothering you, why do you insist on sticking your nose in my business.

    If this were a bunch of Wiccans gathering each week and somebody raised an objection, there would be such an outcry of discrimination it would be unbelievable. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have seen it where I live.

    Hmmmmmm guess they could keep the bible study to 14 people each week or 14 people each night or whatever. I guarantee you there would still be the same objections raised by folks who want to stamp God out of this country.

    I refuse to get into an argument with a bunch of people on here about this subject though. It is my right to have a Bible study or whatever I want in my own home.

    Sad thing about it is that as Christians, part of this is the Christians (me included) fault for sitting back for so long and allowing our freedoms to be slowly taken away. NO MORE!!!!!

    Give it a few more years and it will be just like a communist country and the Christians will have to put black curtains up over their windows to be safe when having prayer and Bible study!
    I don't believe he broke any laws
    You believe that he did. We're at an impasse. I don't hate America I put America first before the rest of the world, but I guess I'm just selfish enough to take care of my home first. I'm a baaaad person I guess.
    The tougher laws I see...
    refer to dealers. So far as I can see, she wasn't dealing. She was a user. McCain, so far as I can see, has not wanted harsher penalties against users. He wanted tighter laws so not so much flows over the borders, he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins (like heads of cartels, etc). Again...John McCain, by himself, cannot make law. He can support it and vote for it, but if all the others in the legislature don't vote for it, it doesn't become law.

    What he asked for tougher laws on I can't see that his wife did. I am sure Ted Kennedy would probably vote to keep the law that it is a felony to leave the scene of an injury accident too...but that didn't stop him from walking away from a bridge where a young woman was drowning in a submerged car. He managed to get himself out but could not be bothered to try to get her out. And he never did 1 second in jail for that. Which in my book is much worse than what Cindy McCain did.

    That being said...The tougher laws McCain (and many others) supported was against dealers, not users. She didn't deal. She used and she stole from herself essentially (her foundation funded the charity) and yes, put pressure on the physicians associated with it to write her prescriptions. Because she was addicted and you know that someone who is addicted does not make good decisions.

    The system is not perfect. No, she did not do any time for her crime. Many first-time user-offenders don't. On the other hand, they make deals with people a lot worse than Cindy McCain every day, turn them loose in order to get the bigger fish. That's not right either, but it happens every day. And contrary to what you might think, even people who forged prescriptions have gotten off, people a lot less affluent than Cindy McCain. For a whole lot of reasons.

    And I say again...if you had all the means at your disposal the McCains have and it was your mother or sister who, while addicted, did things she would not normally do...if it was in your power to protect her from jail and get her the help she needed to get off the stuff, would you not do it?

    Incidentally, McCain also, as part of his advocating harsher penalties for dealers, also advocated increase in federal spending for drug treatment programs: McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, “Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts.”

    Honestly, I can't find anything where he advocates harsher treatment of addicts and users. Only dealers.
    Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
    citizenship.
    in-laws are all dems - what to do? nm
    x
    Laws protect more than that...
    You don't have to be a citizen in the United States to be protected from being murdered. You just have to be human and alive, both of which can also be said of UNBORN CHILDREN. Or are we to believe that a tourist, or a person who is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, is NOT protected from being murdered? Can I just go out and kill anybody I want to just because they aren't citizens? Ahhh, no. I don't think so.

    And the whole "mind your own business" argument doesn't hold water. A human life is taken during an abortion, the same as when it is taken during a murder. Are we all to just "mind our own business" and "just don't kill anybody?" No, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't choose to kill someone, or have an abortion, doesn't mean we can just "live and let live" - particularly since people who commit abortions and murders DON'T let their victim live...at all.

    These are exactly the types of arguments/mantra that have been spewed from the mouths of people who TRY to make us believe this is a women's issue to help us make a choice about "our bodies." If it was only my body, I would agree. But it is not my body that is being killed. It is my child. Men, women, children, citizen or not - no one has the right to take a human life.
    you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
    women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
    NY has had laws on the books for
    over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.

    I for one, love it!
    Yeah......who needs laws?
    bang, bang, shoot 'em up.
    If there are laws against smoking
    at parks, your son's baseball park, or anywhere, marijuana wouldn't be allowed either, because it's also smoking.
    Marrying in laws
    Was not required, but suggested. They were allowed to decline.


    I said SOUND laws..
    Giving women the right to vote WAS A SOUND LAW. I think someone has missed their naptime.
    what? laws to taze your kid? sheez.
    x
    Laws protecting from murder

    Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.


    A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."


    Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized.  The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone.  It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.


    Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.


    If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is:  Don't have one.


    We are governed by laws not the Bible!
    In the United States of America, we are required to follow laws, not the Ten Commandments. The last time I checked, raping, killing, and stealing were against the law.

    By the way, a lot of good the Ten Commandments do keeping people from breaking laws. I would bet anything that the majority of prisoners in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
    There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
    I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
    no laws don;t trample people
    shoppers do.  We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans.  A democracy needs reasoning participants.  In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.
    If we claim to be a nation of laws, then
    we need to BE a nation of laws. JTBB has said it all and said it well.
    Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
    in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
    Read up on the laws of this country

    A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.


    Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.


    Trying to change sound laws
    is just as objectionable as breaking them. ;-) I believe the topic was enforcing laws. Need to leave this one alone so it can be enforced.
    Oprah on child molestation laws...sm

    I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement.  The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.


    *This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old … this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.

    We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.

    Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*


    I am SO with you on the religion in your face thing. My in laws are so sm
    judgmental of nonChristians that it literally would make you ill. I am a Christian and a strong one, but I wasn't a Christian I would probably divorce my husband and move 3,000 miles away from all of them.

    Nice talking with you.
    Not to mention, THE PEOPLE vote for these laws and
    People vote to place ridiculous bans on things because they saw on the news that a so-called scientific study told them it's for the good of all. Don't bother to trace back to who paid for that study and who will reap the rewards of the ban. My oh my, they said it's for the good of the people, so therefore, I shall vote as they instruct. The latest? They've now banned fast food restaurants in California because they apparently feel that poor people can't make good health choices. What an insult! If people are that poor, they probably can't afford fast food anyway because fast food ain't all exactly cheap these days.

    But you go right on blaming the Democrats or the Republicans or whichever group you see fit. The vote still lays in the hands of the people of this country. The more I see so many Democrats here acting like everyone is a complete moron for having any kind of opposing view and touting every single thing a Democrat does as the holy grail, the more I feel like moving to another country. Wake up! If you can't admit that even Democrats make mistakes and aren't saviors, then you are prejudiced.
    By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
    nm
    "If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
    Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
    Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress

    President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.


    WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.


    Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.


    There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.


    It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.


    A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.


    Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..


    Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.


    Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.


    But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.


    There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.


    But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.


    The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.


    Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.


    Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.


    It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?


    Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...

     


    http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/


    Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.


    The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.


      In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.


      “To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.


      Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.


      The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.


    McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
    nm
    Thanks for the links! nm
    nm
    thanks for the links
    I will check them out after finishing my IC work!
    I am still an IC and I don't know why my taxes are high, I have been doing it for over 10 years, but I have an accountant do them, and I pay quarterly's yes I do... I still always end up paying at the end of the year even if I try to calculate it correctly because of deductions I thought I had, etc. The only thing that changed in my personal life was two years ago I bought a house. Did that cover the questions?

    I just don't trust either politician, but align myself with the Republican values more strongly.
    Thanks for the links....sm
    ...but this was the year after she was no longer the mayor of Wasilla, and three years before she became governor, so she was not in office in 2003. I notice they don't even try to link her name to this. I'm sure they would have, if they could have.


    Anyway, sure doesn't excuse the drug problem in the communities, though. I still don't like it one bit.

    Links

    I do not understand why so many links are put on this board?


    On a blog forum one should put one's own opinion, not what is posted on the internet.  At least one should put it in one's own words.


    Here are the links again...

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html


    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html


    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20060123.aspx


    Here's two links...sm
    First off, when you have a private meeting with the president, it's private. But then parts of it were leaked to the press. Then the White house asked for a retraction of false statements made by Obama camp. Then the Obama camp retracted what they said.



    There's more to it than these two stories, but these are the best I can find at the moment.


    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/11/obama-urges-bush-help-auto-indusstry/

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6231372&page=1


    Links
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129667/posts

    This link has a clip:
    http://motownsports.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1685563
    Some links for you
    Sorry it took so long. I kept reading about his plans to keep the military over there but sure enough when I want to find the exact article I can't. Here are some articles I did find. (P.S. - I think it odd the person who is chosen for SoS position (Billiary) is the same person who said they would "obliterate Iran". Am sure that's going to go over well with them.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-keep-80000-troops-in-iraq/

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857338,00.html

    http://www.laboreducator.org/troopshome.htm

    Here's what some people say (so it's not just me) -

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081112052420AAQI2Su

    And here's one of the scariest things I've heard (out of Obama's own mouth - if you can listen to it without watching his eyes read the teleprompter). He's pretty much telling us "Yes I can make us defenseless".

    http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/

    Links...(sm)

    Warning:  On this first one there are some terrible pics, but I posted this for the text.


    http://www.staticbrain.com/archive/pentagon-censors-soldiers-access-to-internet/


    On this one, please note where he says *When you’re in an environment where you don’t have access to any information sources, independent or otherwise, all you can do is conjecture. We didn’t have any access to newspapers or the Internet. *


    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-14/article/29458?headline=Iraq-Veteran-Speaks-Out-Against-War


    Here's a reality check for you:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOj7Nxcn6gg&feature=related


    Here's two links for you
    These were posted before some of the crap was taken out, so some of it may be old, but these give a good idea how the government plans to spend our money, and our children's money, and our grandchildren's money, etc.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123204034869386185.html



    This one uses Adobe.



    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/AmericanReinvestment2009115

    Here's the links for ya.

     


    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVg2jiaBA1jwVfCdsisXI0FbZD0AD965BKCG0



     


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29030191/


    See links
    http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3817

    http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=cubanosenmiami&message.id=55144


    See links
    http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3817

    http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=cubanosenmiami&message.id=55144


    What is it with these links today?

    SM, better links than supplied by OPs

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019637.php


    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572509823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


     


    Can you give links on any of this....
    other than..."I heard..." Believe me, the way auto sales are falling, if they could manufacture one that ran on water and sold for $1200 they would be selling them, because $1200 is better than zero...good grief. Talk about your conspiracy theories. All the automakers are downsizing and grasping to try to sell cars and they would NOT ignore something they could build and sell cheap...simple economics 101. The Wal-mart approach to car sales, and they all know how successful wal-mart is, because all the pieties about "I only buy American" and "offshoring" fall to the wayside in favor of "cheap." All those same people who gripe about wal-mart buying overseas and supposedly mistreating their employees run over each other to get to the sales, and don't think they don't. Typical Democrat mantra...do as we say, not as we DO.

    As to the car McCain offered the bounty for on the battery...he was talking about one that would replace what is in use now...not one whose top end is 30 mph and you have to charge it after an hour. Good grief, get your facts straight. :-) I am sure he meant one that would at least do 50 mph and you could drive it to the quick pick and back without having to plug it in. That being said, I did see where Toyota (on the US side) is working on technology to attach solar panels to charge batteries. Of course, that would mean leaving that sweeetttt little sports car out in the sun...ahem. Bet Teddy Kennedy won't be buying one and I bet RFK Jr. won't either...lol. Gotta love'em. DO as we SAY...not as we DO.
    Links provided
    The words were witnessed by two McCain aides and three reporters who did not report it at the time.

    If it wasn’t true there would be lawsuits (which there are not). And with him running for president you KNOW he would be denying it as he is denying other things, but he is not denying it.

    Here are the links below where this information can be found. Many more links but I think five are enough.

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/02/194648.php

    http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Columns/2008/04/15/23789/

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/8/17456/91972/887/492360

    http://agonist.org/schecter/?p=8571

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=536_1210293502


    URLs or links only, please. nm