Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is this a good job app question? With whom and how often do you have sex?

Posted 2 years ago on March 20, 2012, 9:15 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In AZ the Republicans want to extent even further the rights and powers of the employer.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/health/article/245169/12/AZ-bill-women-must-prove-they-need-contraception-for-medical-reasons

150 Comments

150 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Based strictly on the article you linked to I see no problem. When you have someone else paying for something you give them a say in how you spend their money.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And since your employer pays your wages, then by extension they are paying for everything you do, therefore it's no problem for the employer to decide which cereal you should eat. I get your logic, I just don't agree.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It's there now with some companies weeding out smokers or with off the job DUI convictions costing people their job. The high cost of insurance is just accelerating the process. Contraception adds a moral and religious concern for some employers. Your example of choosing our food isn't that far fetched. I don't believe we're very far from employers using BMI to determine who to hire and insure, to protect against the cost to them for diabetes or heart disease in their employees (Australia uses BMI in determining who they allow to emigrate).

I don't know where it will go. I'm simply saying that it is normal for the person that pays for something to demand a say if they feel they have a vested interest. For the most part it was once a straight trade, employee does work-boss pays salary. Benefits have changed that.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That's the difference between conservatives and us. While we treasure individual liberty, we also recognize the concept of social responsibility.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I see bias on both sides, it just depends on the issue you pick. One man's law enforcing social responsibility is another man's violation of individual rights. It's easy when you ban secondhand smoke or stop a drunk from driving. Things get more complicated when you ban free speech on a campus it avoid offending anyone.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is also normal for people to feel they should have some say over their lives, even if they do have a job. The tendency by the GOP to believe that people are basically slaves to their employer’s whim is dangerous and unnecessary if you want to have a business you pay the cost to do so, that doesn’t give you the right to tell others how to live.

I think a single payer or at least allowing a public option would eliminate some of these problems and have the added benefit of being more efficient.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I certainly agree with you there. The mandate to purchase insurance under the current law is a good example, it's offering a focus for objections (the opposite of slaves to your employer perhaps, being slave to the state). Single payer is the only intelligent way to go, something on the order of Medicare, just open to any age, would be easy to initiate.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

single payer would be best, very disappointing that we didn't get the public option, maybe next year if there are fewer GOP ion office...

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

What a fool.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Only the Fool can tell the truth, how observant of you.

[-] -2 points by dwhit45 (5) 2 years ago

getting rid of the stinkin unions would solve the problem

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

let's get rid of the stinking corporations first

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

unions are all that will protect you from the companies and the governments you idiot

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Its clearly a violation of current laws protecting potential employees from being discriminated based on sex, religion or disability. Maybe the employer wants a young woman who won't get pregnant, so contraception is desirable to him. Maybe he's religious and doesn't want her taking it. Maybe if he knows the woman has a medical condition, he won't hire her. This is the problem.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You didn't read the linked article, it has nothing to do with interview questions. There is no law being considered that mentions interview questions. I agree asking questions about sexual activity in an interview would be inappropriate. As big an invasion as asking about your religious or political beliefs.

The headline of the post though is a misleading distraction. The article, and the Arizona law it mentions, is about the right of an employer to opt out of paying for services that they find objectionable on religious grounds. My point remains, if you want your employer to pay for something you give them the right to have a say in how you use their money.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Ah! Ok, then. You're right. Honestly I would think this would cause few problems. As a woman, mostly I've been asked in interviews if I have sick children or parents to take care of (illegal question, but it happens a lot and I'm sure other women can vouch the same). I would think most employers want women taking birth control to avoid time lost to family leave absences. Only a handful of very religious employers would want to restrict their female employees access, especially since it has so many medically uses.

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

By your logic, customers also have a right to dictate how a company uses their profits, corporations have a right to tell shareholders how they will spend dividends and depositors have a right to tell banks how to invest their profits from interest and investments earned by the assets that include depositor accounts. In other words, the person receiving any money is required to use that money in the manner proscribed by the last person to hold that money.

Whether or not you adhere to that principle all the way down the line, no employer on earth would tolerate being told how to spend profits by customers and the same would be true for employees vis-a-vis employers if the labor force wasn't so desperate. The reason wealthy corporatists like high unemployment is because it creates a docile and exploitable workforce. And statutes like this are the result.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Everyone tries to dictate to others all the time. Isn't that exactly what we do when we pass a law mandating employers purchase health insurance for employees? Boycotts attempt to tell corporations what to do, how and where to invest. We want corporate money out of politics, we want people to buy American. When anyone buys a product they feel they have a right to make demands on the producer. The demands aren't always reasonable, but we make them none the less.

[-] -2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No, everyone does not try to dictate to others all the time. I'm not trying to dictate my spiritual philosophy to people who believe in organized religion. And there are millions of Christians in America who are perfectly content to let people of other faiths be what they are. But when it comes to economic policy, nearly every decision has a direct impact on the livelihoods of everyone. Standing up for what you believe to be your fair rights in any cooperative economy, which every economy not ruled by guns is, isn't trying to dictate to others.

Your liberty ends where mine begins and economic liberty is the root of all issues in America. Without capital, we'd still be able to work and barter and function. Without labor, there would be nothing. That's the dirty little secret the owners and managers don't want you to think about. It's only by virtue of dependence on non-farm wages coupled with high unemployment that employers even have the luxury of thinking along these lines.

Time is far more valuable than money. Always has been, always will be. Employers are almost always getting the better end of the bargain. That's enough. They don't deserve more rights because they signed the paycheck.

Also, this statement:

"Based strictly on the article you linked to I see no problem. When you have someone else paying for something you give them a say in how you spend their money."

Contradicts this statement:

"The demands aren't always reasonable, but we make them none the less."

So which is it? No problem if someone dictates how the next person spends money or not always reasonable?

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm speaking in general terms, when I say people dictate to others all the time, I mean it in the same way as when it's said people shop in a mall all the time. It doesn't mean you spend every moment in a mall, but at any given time there are people engaged in that activity.

You are willing to allow anyone to observe the dictates of their religion, then you add a qualification. Your liberty doesn't necessarily include your employer paying for your health care. It's a law we've made recently, and in the view of some, that law violates the first amendment.

Your thoughts on labor's importance is the opinion of most in the labor movement. Many small business owners might see labor's contribution to their particular venture as less interested in the success of the business and more interested in simply what the worker can get for himself.

As far as my statements being contradictory, that appearance is the result of talking in a general manner. People make demands when they invest in something. That can be time, money, emotion, once we're involved we develop the feeing we have a right or obligation to say how things should be. Those demands are always reasonable to the person making them. Looking at the same issue from the outside someone else very often disagrees.

In the case of this Arizona law, the Catholic Church would find it very reasonable to be able to opt out of paying for contraception and abortion services. Groups that claim to represent what they call women's health issues would think the Church's position is unreasonable. My statements are not contradictory, they depend on the perspective of the individual.

I'm not being inconsistent, people develop opinions and make demands, we don't always agree on the value of a particular demand, we don't have the same demands. Some demands appear reasonable to the majority others are debated by their minority supporters forever.

[-] -2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

That's all well and good but it doesn't comport with your original statement:

"Based strictly on the article you linked to I see no problem. When you have someone else paying for something you give them a say in how you spend their money."

Since you were replying to a post about salary and wages, you made a blanket statement that indicated you believed the principle applied in all money transactions. If you don't really believe that to be true, then your original statement isn't what you meant.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

My initial comment was actually two separate points. One, the link had nothing to do with interview questions, it involved what is becoming a first amendment issue. Two, the money comment, when people buy something for you they often feel entitled to have a say. In the case of health insurance it isn't unusual to see employers changing companies with little of no employee input if it's their money paying the premiums.

The original statement doesn't imply all money transactions, just those where something is purchased for an individual by a third party. Specific examples might be benefits paid for by employers and programs involving government money, even parents supporting older children.

In purchases we do expect a fair return for our dollar. Occasionally consumers also engage in boycotts to try to sway a business. However an individual purchasing something for himself I see as different from a request or demand that things be bought for you.

[-] -1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

It's not the employers money. It's part of the compensation package for their employees labor. Labor is a purchased service, just like any other product or service in the economy. If part of the price is insurance coverage paid for by the employer, than that's the price and that's the end of the story. If employers can't handle that, then they should favor a healthcare system that doesn't rely on employee provided coverage, but for some reason, most of the largest employers in the country are against that. Why do you suppose that is?

The people who keep insisting that health care be covered in the private market instead of in public policy are the same ones who keep insisting that they have a moral right to dictate how the money to pay for those premiums will be used. In other words, the same people who place the "free market" above all other considerations are angry that some people will use that "free market" to avail themselves of contraception. They stand on "principle" until the "principle" doesn't give them the desired result and the "principle" melts away like a sandcastle in a rising tide.

This has nothing to do with any principle of any kind except one: control. This is about controlling people as much as possible in every way possible. This is about greed and fear. Greed for more than they deserve or have ever come close to earning and fear that people will find them out and give them their just rewards. And the more they turn the screws, the faster they bring on their own demise.

"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

How much longer do you think the corporatists can keep this up?

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree it's all part of the compensation package, but that obviously isn't how the government is looking at it when they mandate employers purchase health insurance. You are right, but we can't have it both ways, the employer is in or not as the purchaser of insurance. If he's out then there is no first amendment issue, if the mandate reads that the employer buys the policy then it's a matter for the Court.

Businesses would certainly prefer a government sponsored health program. The money they spend on health care isn't counted by anyone as actually belonging to the employee it should profit business to have a nationalized health care system.

Your also right about control being an issue, but who is attempting to control whom is a matter of perspective. By mandating employers pay for abortion and contraceptive services the government is deciding how groups will be allowed to practice their religious beliefs. It would be a serious mistake for anyone to allow a first amendment right to be attacked just because it doesn't happen to effect them personally. the believer gets to decide what their religion is about not those of us on the outside.

Personally I believe that the only intelligent way to go would have been a single payer. It would be more efficient and none of this would ever have come up.

[-] -2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You can call it an employer "mandate," but it's just a tax on companies that don't offer benefits. And it applies to companies with fifty or more employees. So the average mom and pop is exempt. When a large employer refuses to offer benefits or a wage high enough to afford benefits, the public has to pick up the tab. That costs all of us. The tax is simply recouping that cost. Either way, money is not yours when it leaves your hands and you have no say in how it's spent.

I totally agree with your final point. Single payer would fix almost everything and we'd have nothing to disagree about.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sometimes the government refers to it as a tax and other times it doesn't. As long as the regulations state that the employer much purchase health insurance for the employees, then everything else is meaningless semantics. As an employer mandate it is seen as violating the first amendment rights of some religions.

[-] -2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Religion is not commerce. Regulating commerce is what this is. Not religion. You can practice whatever you like but employers can't force people to use leeches for as medicine, even if they are paying for it, which they aren't because the money they lay out is part of the compensation, by contract. So the whole notion that "moral beliefs" trump either medicine or commerce is absurd.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The members of any religion are the ones that define how they will worship and what the provisions of their faith are, not those of us on the outside. In the case of the Catholic Church, they are against abortion and contraception, but make no move to actually stop women from getting those services themselves. Women are free to do what they want.

The HHS regulation orders all employers, including any that are devout Catholics, to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion and contraception. The employee is free to get these on their own, no one is stopping them. The regulation orders some people to go against their religious beliefs to support what is not usually a medical need at all.

The Arizona law, linked to above, is an attempt to provide for women that need birth control pills for an actual medical reason to get the service covered. At the same time it allows employers to opt out of paying for a service that is objectionable to them on religious grounds when it is simply a lifestyle choice for the employee.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"The proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. " Sen. Edward Kennedy

"The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives." Sen. Edward Kennedy

[-] -1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

From below:

"Employee benefits were started as a result of Roosevelt's Stabilization Act of 1942."

Yes, but when they had the chance to ditch the system and go with universal health care under Eisenhower (which he favored), they chose to take a tax exemption form the IRS instead. This is their doing.

"You still have the consistent position of the Catholic Church that birth control services violate the teachings or their religion...

Which is totally irrelevant in the workplace. They can preach from the pulpit all they want but "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion," and that includes laws designed to accommodate sectarian beliefs.

"The rest of your argument about morality might have some merit if the services we were talking about were actually needed for health..."

Right, because sex is a choice and people who have sex are immoral. There's nothing about sex that has anything to do with health care or the safety of the society. There's no such thing as sexually transmitted diseases. That's all just myth. Right?

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

What employers or employees did isn't the point. The only thing that is important is the First Amendment. You left out the critical part of it in your quote though, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's that free exercise thereof that many believe trumps an employees desire to get medically unnecessary medication paid for by an employer against his religious beliefs.

It has nothing to do with preaching or anything you or I think their religion is or should be. It's up to the worshiper to determine what the free exercise of his religion is, not other people, and certainly not government.

You weren't thinking with your comment on STDs. Birth control pills and abortions have no value in treating or preventing STDs. In fact it's often argued that the pill has created a social atmosphere conducive to the spread of STDs.

The Doctrine of the Catholic Church sees sex as for procreation, their belief is that things that block that are immoral. It doesn't have to be something you or I agree with, it's their constitutional right to decide how they freely exercise their religion.

[-] -1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Employers don't have the right to opt out of a system they created. This isn't about mom and pop, it's about large enterprises. Those enterprise CHOSE to create the employee-provided system because it gave them more control over the labor force. They don't get to force people into a system and then walk away from it. Period.

This IS about morality, the morality of forcing people into a system that is inadequate for their needs. That's more immoral than any violation of religious principles in any context. Because it's tangible. The only harm to religion is spiritual, but the harm to individuals is physical. The moral imperative favors the individual in this case. There is no way around this.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Employee benefits were started as a result of Roosevelt's Stabilization Act of 1942. In an attempt to control wartime inflation, this law prevented employers from offering higher wages. War industries couldn't attract workers with pay but the courts gave them the approval to use benefits. No one was interested in control of anything, it was an unintended consequence of government intervention.

Even if you were right and employers created the system of benefits on their own initiative. You still have the consistent position of the Catholic Church that birth control services violate the teachings or their religion and are not included in employee health plans. It is again government intervention causing this.

The rest of your argument about morality might have some merit if the services we were talking about were actually needed for health (which the Arizona law tries to address). No one is stopping the individual from buying anything they wish. If I were a devout Catholic employer my religion tells me giving these things to others is a sin. I would want to exercise my First Amendment right to worship as I see fit, not as you or anyone else tells me I should do it. The religious person isn't stopping the employee from using their own funds to buy a medically unnecessary drug, he or she just doesn't want to be forced into participating in it against the dictates of religion.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yes - I agree. you are giving up your rights - that is the whole point.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Of course you do. Everything we get comes at a cost, most people just don't realize it. We trade away personal liberties in a complex society all the time, so often we don't always realize it.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

absolutely. so when is enough enough?

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It's always different for different people, we often ignore when the rights of others are imposed on. Worse still, people often support restrictions on the rights of people they disagree with.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I agree. It just seems we are waaaay over the line already with government intervention. for the past 10 years it's only going in one direction. More ! : )

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

People seem to be as greedy as corporations, they want their free stuff. Promise them something for free and they seem all too willing to give up a few rights, and very willing to sacrifice the rights of others.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

exactly! people want something for nothing. and that attitude is contagious! when people see other people getting free stuff - they dont want to be the sucker so they jump on the band wagon.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Where in the article does it mention anything about interview questions? The law your talking about concerns rights of employers buying health insurance, nothing in it about asking employees anything.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The employee buys the health insurance with their labor as they do all the cost of their employment, if they didn't they wouldn't have a job.

But wouldn’t be better to ask the question up front instead of firing them later if you don’t like the answer, which the law would allow them to do.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Yes they certainly do, but with per-tax dollars, they want it kept as a benefit rather then be given the money by the employer and then pay the premium, after paying tax. There are also tax benefits for the employer.

The whole issue over contraception and abortion has been mischaracterized. There are individuals and businesses that are opposed on religious grounds to purchasing that coverage. They see is as a first amendment issue. That's what the Arizona law is about. The question you pose above in your post doesn't fit in with the article. It's almost as though you've taken a Limbaugh approach of sorts.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It has been mischaracterized when it is presented that the employer is buying the insurance, they are not; they pay for it as they pay wages but it is the work done by the employee that is buying it. Therefore the employer has no grounds to object to contraception, abortion or anything else that is covered as they are not buying it. Yes for bookkeeping we call it many things, but morally the employee is paying for everything with their labor, so the employer need not worry about their soul.

There is no first amendment issue in regards to the employer as they are not actually morally paying for the insurance the employee is through their labor, would I rather a single payer and higher wages of course but this is what we could get past the GOP.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

It's likely to come down to the Supreme court deciding if this is a first amendment issue. I agree the money is all part of the package of employee pay. However the regulation itself doesn't say anything about taking some of the employee's money and buying health insurance for them. The regulation requires employers to buy the insurance. If as an employer I gave my employees a raise and told them to buy their own insurance, I'd face a fine for not being the one that actually signed the policy and made the purchase. The semantics of it is all fun and interesting, but it's not likely to be a useful defense. Government has no sense of humor, logic, or irony in these matters.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There is no such thing as "taking part of" the employee’s money, my point is it is all the employee’s money no matter the employee earns it along with his paycheck, if we say the employer is responsible for what the employee spends what they earn on, then there is no limit to that.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

It a way that is of course true, but the health care law doesn't reflect that in this case. The employer is directed to buy the insurance. The economic reality of where the money comes from isn't relevant. A counter argument is that because the employee doesn't pay tax on that money and because it wasn't handed to him or her directly then it isn't technically theirs yet.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and the law requires that they pay wages too, if we are to give empolyers control over what we have earned that is a very dangous road to go down, this involes a moral question and morally the empolyee pays for all of this with their labor, it is no different than going on a paid vacation

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I agree with your basic analysis, but the fact remains government doesn't classify benefits as coming from the employee's money. So it's the employer that has to get the policy and sign for it and hand over money for it, no matter who's money it actually is, the law requires the employer to get the insurance. That's where the trouble comes in with abortion and contraception coverage.

In the case of the health care law, I'm more worried about the government deciding who will be forced to buy things and what they should buy then I am worried about employers.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you are figuring that God will judge you on your compliance with local law?

Fear not He spoke to that and clearly stated that you would not be, “give unto Caesar....”so you see there is no issue involving religious beliefs as this is a secular decision. When we freely elect to do certain things like own a car, we are required to buy things like auto insurance to operate that car, no matter our faith in regard to that purchase, same is true for those that choose to do business and employee people they must make concessions to “the world” this is a personal choice each person must make, can I compromise my principal enough to conduct this secular actively, others involed in the actively are not required to follow your rules those are agreed to through a long process in our democracy. What we have here is a lot of people who disagree with how that process turned out trying to make everybody else follow their rules based on a false premises. I respect the monks who take a vowel of poverty and the Amish which live by to their religion, and that path is available to any who wish to take it. No one should be forced to operate a business if it is against their religious beliefs to do so.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

You're confusing my statements with some belief in a supreme being. I don't have such beliefs. What Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, or any one else said isn't relevant to me.

The issue is a first amendment one for the religious groups involved. It's not up to you or I to parse words and rationalize their faith for them and then tell them what they are permitted to believe. In the case of the Catholic Church in the United States that function is reserved for the Council of Bishops.

Your closing argument may be relevant at some point, if the church shut down all their hospitals and schools, they wouldn't have to comply. Imagine the chaos and hatred directed at the government if that happened. Public services wouldn't be able to meet the needs of the people.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

somebody would buy them if the Church got out

I thought of another solution, the employer could just pay the amount plus enough to cover taxes to the employee then deduct it from the check, that way it's all clean all around.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I'm not sure you'd see anyone lining up to buy these money pits. Neither the schools nor the hospitals come close to breaking even. But who knows, people sometimes see opportunity in strange places.

The religious objection centers around the employers involvement. Personally I don't care what is done. You'd have to be president to give your solution a try. When you throw in a greater expense for business by asking them to cover the tax too you may be adding in a deal breaker though.

In this matter, with the present law considering the money as coming from and belonging to the employer, I see it as a first amendment issue. I would defend the Catholic Church's right to opt out of the provision just as I would support a communist or neo-nazi's right to make a speech.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Don't need to send the Bisshop's a note as they will be "paying" the healthcare, of course they came up with their own way of realizing that the worker is the one truly paying, I won this one, don't need to do anything.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Congratulations.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If the empolyer wants to make sure "their hands are clean" they should bnot mind the cost, of course they are free to consider it all earned by the empolyee then they don't have an issue and can save money too.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Drop an email to the bishops, who knows they may accept your interpretation of their religion and how to freely exercise it to give you the outcome you desire. Or we could just get rid of the first amendment.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

What a bunch of neanderthals.

Really.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yes, it won't pass, at least I don't think so, but I do like to remind people we passed public funding in 1998, since 2000 I think all state people have gotten public money, so fixing the funding is not enough we have to get rid of the GOP and watch what the dems do.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Facts, I'm furious with the Democrats. I just hate the GOP a lot more.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm pretty much in the same place, I think in 93, some of them did a great thing, some tried to do more, it is so tough to judge, life is hard and I know what people have to do to get by, I know the dems are in a tough spot sometimes, if we don't have their back, there is a lot less they can do.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I love ya, facts. I do.

In part, I blame the general public for not asking the right questions. I blame the mainstream media for keeping it that way.

Have their backs? They don't want me to have their backs. They want me to send money.

Who has my back? I have seen one person that truly goes up to bat and that would be Sanders. He is Independent.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

maybe i overstate, but I put it up here, I can't make them read it, that's kinda what I mean, I know they never care what I got to say, they just want my money, and believe me I've tried, dressed up for their fancy crap and everything, I'm just too liberal for them, I get that, but the thing about truth, once you let it out of the bag you never know where it's going to take you, that's why the 1% like lies so much, easier to control

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree that is the reason that the 1% and their shills lie. Let's hope we can keep the truth moving long enough to force change.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it could happen you never know..

I know you like to think a bit, so here's what I'm saying, not that you don't get it, but in the beginning you start to tell yourself that it is better if certain thing are emphasized, "freedom" over "governance" for what drove the country from the beginning. If you can lay claim to the origin you of a thing you "own it", be it life, morals or government.

The lies become tools, not just in the moment but long term too.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

And this brings us back to what we talked about some six months ago.

If the issues are not adequately addressed while you have peaceful demonstrations and things continue to get progressively worse for many people then you will have those bread riots.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Exactly, in another thread in response to a troll, saying competition is great for capitalism, I replied "competition for food" he replied as if I were exaggerating. When if fact I had been listening to a piece about the first person ever to escape a North Korean labor camp, who was born there. These camps house around 200,000 and have been there for 50 years, think concentration camp, this man escape story begins when he meets a prisoner brought in from outside who tells him of the outside world, TV, internet, freedom, but it was the belly filled the grilled meat that inspired the man born to a camp to dream of escaping. In the end it does become food that matters, when you are hungry liberty is not so important. I urge people to vote today so we can eat tomorrow.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Franken and Kloubachar have signed on. It took Bernie Sanders to keep the fire lit, then it took people seeing and supporting his effort to help keep it alive, then it took people communicating their support to others to start other officials to stand up. It is, we are - ALL CONNECTED.

We begin moving forward - Together.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree. However, it always takes Bernie Sanders to light a fire under someone's ass and that is my point. If the closest that I can get to someone that actually represents what I believe is a guy in another state then it means that none of these people are actually representing me.

I am just currently fed up right now. Just for today and maybe tomorrow, too. :D

The thing that is really ticking me off is that there are people who have traditionally been Republican that are now moving to Democrats which means that there are going to be more Blue Dogs. The Democrats are going to continue to operate as Republicans.

And around we go again. Two steps forward and three steps back. I think it's a serious problem.

But, you are right. We just have to keep moving forward together.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And we are as Wisconsin shows, we are making progress, as it shows that public participation can rally support for the Bernie Sanders of the world. As continued Public involvement can establish a control and the nurture of positive action. As it shows that the public is not powerless and does need to be listened to.

You should feel really good about the fruits we are beginning to see from your efforts as well as from the other good peoples efforts.

I know the feeling of frustration though too as I imagine how much more swiftly this could all be moving.

Keep smiling and enjoy what successes we see as they come - momentum can be slow to build but can be so awesome when in full motion.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Once again I feel the need to point out that an 'employer provided health plan' is a misnomer...

The employer provides the group via the employees, as part of the employees pay package insurance is offered. Employees have the option to join the group or decline the group. Employees pay half the cost of the insurance (in most instances).

There fore it is NOT employer provided insurance. It is employer participation in the payment of the premiums of said insurance and employer collection and distribution of said premiums, for which the insuring agency SHOULD be reimbursing the afore mentioned employer for the service.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I agree, saying what is or is not covered is not the empolyers right. Even the idea that they are paying for it is like a "buy one get one free" you know you are paying for both, everything the empolyer pays out as a result of having an empolyee is really paid by the empolyee through their labor, no matter what the bookfeeping is.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Might be better all around then to dump the employer from the whole thing. Permit each person to buy the coverage they want.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Single payer of course would be best, but the employee is buying it now with their labor, this whole thing about how the employer is buying this, because they pay for it, is like saying they buy everything someone gets with their paycheck, since the employer is paying for that too. This is ridiculous the employee pays for all of this with their labor.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I agree about the single payer. In my case the employer essentially provides the same service as an insurance agent, and employees are happy to let the employer sign the checks for the premium with pre tax dollars.

It probably points out one of the biggest problems in the whole mess, people don't actually know what insurance costs or even what insurance is. They see it as getting free health care, when it's actually sharing the risk. Many have to pay in and never use those health care dollars so that the few can have their costs covered.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Another case is made for having a single payer system. If this passes, where does it go from there? What'll be next when applying for a job in Arizona? "How often do you eat 'fast food' per week. Do you drink alcohol? How often? Do you and your spouse have children? Do you plan to have more? Do you engage in risky sexual activities?" This is yet another reason we need to remove employers from the health insurance equation.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for stopping by, and yes all that you said, and even worst, after all the basis for this is “religious freedom” what if I decide that I am a profit and should deflower all the ladies within my sphere, before you laugh remember this is AZ and we are next to Utah.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

From over here in the cheap seats, this is another half-baked idea that appears to have the goal of placing another hurdle in the way women's healthcare, facts. If he were alive, this is the kind of thing that would cause Barry Goldwater to get his back up, I would think. If this were just about keeping the cost of healthcare insurance down, you'd think Arizona might want to encourage people to practice reproductive control. Kids added onto a health insurance plan can add significantly to it's cost, I would think.

You probably recall our collective discussions regarding other religions laws and observances then, as being the basis for disallowance of healthcare rights. Shari'a law, Mormon practices esp. polygamy, etc., etc. So, where would it end? One could apply and become a recognized religion based on ancient aliens inhabiting the bodies of humans - wait that one is already taken...you see what I'm getting at here, though. :-)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You're right about this one I think it is just more of whatever you want I don't. They see this as a way to attack, but the premise is so crazy, really? you have to live by your employer’s religious beliefs? I mean where would that end if they actually believed their crap. That’s really what I’m trying to say with the whole deflower thing. I like to bring it up because it is so crazy, yet has happen from time to time when things, like kings, got out of hand.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Yes. Crazy is what this is. What will be tried next by those who think they can "put the genie back in the bottle?" They're becoming more despairate year by year. The harder they try, the more they're seen for what they truely are.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As time moves past them they become more despairate.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

The article linked to doesn't say anything at all about interview questions, the title of the post has nothing to do with the law being proposed.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (3095) 2 years ago

The article linked is a factual case (look it up elsewhere or don't you have google) Jamie Leigh Jones is the victim - the supreme court has decided it's legal for employers to require employment contracts that can literally sign away your human and civil rights that you once enjoyed in this country. She got gang raped (Doctors confirmed it because she was almost split in two) but she can't press charges or file suit because part of her contract stated she couldn't and she hadn't read the fine print (guess because she wanted ajob and being from a democratic nation working for an American company didn't assume that being raped was part of the deal) uh wrong the courts thought otherwise. As someone who signed one of these contracts for a previous employer (who was also sexually harassing other female employees in the company) i can tell you not only are theses agreements standard, legal, and hold up now in court, but they are now requiring them just to even fill out the job application. - So yes you can get sexually harassed and not have any recourse now because the contract doesn't have to follow the laws of the state or the federal government. Fucked up huh? We should all have grave concerns about this.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I was referring to the interview question in the original post and the article about the Arizona law about health care and birth control.

I do know that employers are asking for facebook passwords. There is no requirement to give it to them, but the consequences are obvious.

Jamie Jones did file suit against her employer and lost, apparently the jury didn't believe her and two other previous claims of rape and her medical history hurt her case also.

[-] -1 points by elf3 (3095) 2 years ago

The doctors documented her severe injuries. Witnesses brought forth by acquaintances of the company if these even made it to court. What went to court was the challenge to signing away your rights to a corporation upon employment - it was decided they can.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I read the decision about the contract went 2-1 in her favor. In the civil case where she was suing the company and one of the employees the jury found against her, even though the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. Not sure what to think about this case. Without my seeing the evidence or reading a transcript I'd be unable to fairly decide one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You have got this story all wrong.

In 2007, Jones filed a civil lawsuit against the USA, KBR and Halliburton, and a fireman employed by KBR. KBR asked the court to compel arbitration based on her employment contract.

In 2009, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that Jones's lawsuit may proceed in court ignoring the mandatory obligation for arbitration in the employment contract.

A 2010 amendment was passed with the 2010 Appropriations bill that now makes it illegal for government contractors to have mandatory arbitration in their employment contracts.

And H.R. 1020 (111th): Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 has also been put forward to fight the arbitration issue - although it has stalled in committee.

Your statement - while true regarding the mandatory arbitration issue - is separate and distinct from this issue of employer provided health insurance.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Only when I used to open credit card statements. There was an involuntary bending over reflex and a rather unpleasant plunging motion. Since I cut up my credit cards I have been completely celibate.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

may all your days be without interest.....

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Silly.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yeah silly, till you get fired because your boss doesn't like the answer

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

I would say, only with my vacuum cleaner sir, i was too damn ugly to find a woman! But seriously if the employer is paying, and the employee wants privacy, heres a novel thought let them pay for it themselves. Or earn a bonus to pay for it if they are such a damn good employee.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The employee pays for everything with their labor, what's next your boss saying I'm paying for this vacation time so this is where you’re going.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

This seems silly, really. Most employers should be happy to pay for birth control. It is much cheaper than paying for tragic abortions or the bills that come with birthing a child.

And, what about a woman's right to privacy?

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

In the case of the Catholic Church they have consistently been against birth control and abortion moral grounds. They make no move to physically stop anyone, but are opposed to being forced to participate in making it available on insurance policies they are being directed to pay for. They see it as a First Amendment issue.

As far as privacy is concerned, there is HIPPA, but when those insurance forms get sent in everything medically relevant about you is on them.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

I wasn't talking about the Catholic Church here, but I get your point and HIPPA is useless in many ways.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I mention the Church only because this entire debate about contraception/abortion services centers around their religious objection. There is no move to ask interview questions like the one posed in the original post.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course you're right, it is like dental cleanings, much better to pay for them than to pay for not having them, I hope that's not offensive I'm a guy. Even worse though to me is this ideal that the employer has responsibility for whatever they pay for, don't they pay for vacations and what about wages they pay them too, do they get to apply their religious beliefs to everything?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Exactly. It's total b.s. Employers shouldn't even be involved in healthcare at all, if you ask me. Why is our healthcare tied to employment?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Because sometime back in the 50's I think, employers starting adding healthcare as a benefit to attract employees. Then it became the norm. Seemed like a good idea at the time I guess. Now we see how dangerous it can be. So that not only are employees dependent on their employer for their paycheck, but also for insurance. Not to mention the personal intrusions that can develop.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Hi April. All true and this needs to be changed going forward because it's just not working.anymore.

[-] 6 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Hi Doll! Your stuff is spot on as usual. : )

And because this employer run healthcare stuff has turned out oh so marvelous and just keeps getting better, it reminds me of all the "free market" proponents that like to claim that whatever the public sector does the private sector can do better. Really? Like private employer "provided" healthcare plans? Yeah, they've done a really great job with that. lol.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Exactly. Free markets = Big fail for humans

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If we would just say if your sick you get taken care of, maybe we would all make better choices to help us all stay healthy.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Alleviate stress and worry about healthcare and we would all be healthier.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True and what if McDonald’s knew what was on the menu could affect the bottom line? I’m just saying let’s put the market forces to work in the direction of making things better, instead of worse. BTW thank you for the work you do here.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Exactly. And, thanks to you too, factsrfun. Since it's fun, it's not really work, right?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

ohh this is the one with the bad link, none of the trolls have brought that up though....

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Insurance set-up they get larges groups of people by offering better rates for groups of people - Kind of like Ins Co. frequent flyer miles.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

It'd be a lot cheaper if everyone in the country was in one big group. It would be morally correct, too.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

National Health Care Non-Profit. Yep just one big happy family. No one trying to figure out how to deny benefits to increase profits or how to penalize a group with higher rates because they have one or more people who need and receive regular health care. Get profits out of whatever happens to be our end result insurance answer.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Exactly. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nothing it is why the greedy corrupt fight it tooth and nail with their propaganda MSM machine. That is why these other non-issues are thrown in to muddy the waters. Manipulate a population that is not getting real information on a daily basis.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

Well put.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you my very positive type freedom fighter.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3095) 2 years ago

I just heard that job applications are now demanding you give them your personal facebook password or you don't get the job (do they want to strip search me or go through my house or closets too?) Apparently courts have held for the employers. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120320/BUSINESS/303200049/What-your-Facebook-password-Job-seekers-being-asked-access-by-possible-employers

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3095) 2 years ago

Every freedom we've ever had is being challenged now - I just hope the younger generations understand what it is they are losing and the freedoms we once enjoyed think that's bad how about signing away your civil right not to be gang raped when you take employment? Is this a democracy? http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151452/woman_gang-raped_by_7_halliburton_employees_%22signed_away%22_her_right_to_sue_how_justice_has_become_the_privilege_of_corporations/

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is a very good link worthy of a post itself, if you have would you send link to the thread? If not, would you post this link with headline? Anyway, the more who read your link the better off we are. (I will if you like)

This gets to the danger here, if the GOP is successful in establishing this right of the employer to have control over things earned by the worker, just because he pays the worker, where does it end?

I say this whole idea that the employer is buying the healthcare is wrong headed the employee pays for all costs of their employment with their labor, the employer pays wages and other things but does not “buy” them and therefore there is no first amendment issue at all, since it is the employee through their labor that morally pays for all costs and provides a profit to the employer, or the employee has no job. If viewed the other way the employer has moral responsibility for what you do on vacation, and we know that’s impossible since what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Great way of looking at it!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you April, I just came up with that, responding to a troll, I have been doing this a long time, but this one I'm quite proud of.

(i do not want to imply elf is a troll, I spread this one around)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It's a great argument. I was trying to make an argument in another post on the subject, but the way you stated it here is much better than my attempt. You are so smart!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you April, please use anything anyway it can help, here's another thought I've been having about wages, I think they should cover the cost of providing labor, plus a little for the worker, it's the whole "living wage" stated a different way, what do you think?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I suppose it is if you are if you are a sex worker.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and we don't even have sex workers in this state, or at least if we do I don't think reg would apply

but hey you know late at night when I'm all alone thinking about that thin blouse she wore....err sorry

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

It's ok I understand.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's watching the GOP run for office it's just sex all the time, is that all they think of, shouldn't we be fixing our roads or something before the whole cournty falls apart

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Yes we should be fixing the roads ,schools,etc but they are to busy spending it on military toys.Enriching cronies etc,There motto isFTP.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

These guys come out and talk like spending money on a bomb is the same as spending money on a road, then they claim that they will run the country like a business. I wonder how these businesses operate. Do they spend a million bucks on lunch for their buddies lose nine billion on the way back to the office, then tell the warehouse we got no money for delivery trucks, could they ask the customers to come pick up their stuff. These people have no ideal the difference between investing and spending.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Can't they stop being ridiculous for just one day?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No. Because there are about 50 million shades of crazy that vote Republican.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It’s like a competition to crazy. Look I voted for Anderson in 1980 and felt responsible for everything Reagan did, I just want to make sure we have killed the Republican threat before we split the dems into. If we can get public financing we will have a chance, but we have had that in AZ since 1998, or ~2000 if you take the effective date, but look at what we got here. People got to get rid of GOP, no matter how they run for office.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Every woman in America will suddenly have horrible acne only cured by Yaz.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

drugs so small and so valued

maybe there can become the next currency standard

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

ahh...you ok, matt?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

board

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I've decided that all my employees, vendors and hired contractors must spend all of the wages and fees I give them on cat food, whether they own a cat or not. That's a fair trade-off for the money, right?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3095) 2 years ago

Well having a cat is a choice - having a reproductive system is not - so until men have to worry about a part of their bodies forming another life form that lives inside of them for 9 months and then busts open a very sensitive area and boom now you have another life to take care of - then yeah really I think it's a responsibility for all of humanity to allow women the option to be able to choose if they want to reproduce or not. Notice they haven't invented the male pill - weird. On the matter of sex as a choice - Are all these anti-contraception people really abstaining from sex to prevent reproduction? I think maybe they should have to fill out a questionnaire before they refuse to pay for it - better yet let's put a meter on their bed-posts to make sure none of the little soldiers are escaping onto the sheets or down the shower drain for that matter - because that could have been a life and that goes against their beliefs too !!! What if viagra goes against my religion - I'm a naturalist and I think if men can't get it up it's because they just weren't meant to reproduce so I don't think i should have to pay for viagra through my insurance policy.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

An erection is not medically necessary.

Apologies to all you males out there, who have actively working brain cells, and believe and defend a woman's right to make her own decisions about her body. We love you for that. : )

To all the Neanderthal males out there: I hope the Viagra - you pay for yourself - fails you, and you never have sex again.

(I like your "little soldiers" concept as well! Good point. lol.)

[-] 4 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Anyone who doesn't respect women and their rights at all times is a sociopath, straight up. I was raised Presbyterian, which I mention simply to preface my next comment...

Social conservatives can take their fake religiosity and shove it up their asses.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I was totally being facetious but I don't disagree.

[-] -2 points by leonardsova (-24) 2 years ago

You folks seem like you want the Gov to control every aspect of your lives. When and what to eat, how many bowel movements you are allowed each day, etc. Some of you are getting lazier and depending on the Gov for handouts, food, contraceptives, etc

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

leonardsova

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined March 22, 2012


SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you also a dedicated hole digger?

Your off to a good start if you are!

[-] -2 points by leonardsova (-24) 2 years ago

No I am not a hole digger and just stating a point. People should pay their own way

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep.

To do so it would help not to be starved.

Even the flow and along we go.

Prosperity for all.

Then we still need to address pollution for a healthy world for ALL.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

perfectly acceptable as long as that is your religious belief

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

mm hmm

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you need to find one I suggest you look around Egypt. I’m sure a few web pages and you would be well on your way. I wish for you the supreme happiness of not only knowing that you are true and faithful to the Cat, but that all your employees are as well.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

lol

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6486) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

thank you for these comments as well as the other thread :).