Bingo. Nothing actually stops these companies from "using corporate policy" and promoting it as such, or listing it as a core value. They want these regulations, all of them for some reason. Which likely means there's something tasty and delicious that's feeding them and most people aren't seeing.
This is a reality TV star who's spend most of his adult life doing self promotion and staying in the spotlight.
Wow, you really have read nothing about the guy have you? You think the last 10 years have been most of his adult life or something. That's kinda where you sunk any point you had, just a FYI.
They do not set a very high bar, but they set it quite a bit higher than Trump does. I'm a conservative who stays far away from the Republican Party, because they sold their souls and integrity for an election victory. I have a lot more admiration for Bill Crystal or a Never-Trumper than I do a fraudster.
So why don't you explain how a person who's sold the democrat party out for personal gain(that includes the neocon Bill Crystal) aren't fraudsters. While you're at it, why don't you explain how a guy who has it all - literally, figuratively, monetarily, decided to run for president and is a fraudster.
The only things Trump has accomplished, besides the Tax Bill, has been through the executive action. Many of those were also rejected for their illegality, but hey, they score political points with his base!
Really? Guess that's why SCOTUS has turned around and told the lower courts to stop with the bullshit right? Or did you miss that part, or the part where SCOTUS turned around allowed the actions again admonishing the lower courts for massive oversteps of legal authority.
Do you consider those old school Republicans, people like John McCain, Jeff Flake, George Bush (both), and so forth, to be the real Republicans, or that the new upstarts from the tea party to be the real Republicans?
None of those people are old school republicans, they're all neocons of some flavor. Remember? They're the people that had the loving adoration of people like David Frum who was a hard-core neocon and was bumrushed out by conservatives and republicans and was openly welcomed by democrats.
Remember, that majority of Republicans were opposed to Trump during the primaries
Remember that the vast majority of them were also neocons as well, or only RINO's? There were very few that were considered actually conservative or republican.
Very few people in the middle class will see anything like that. That those cuts also sunset in two years while all the other cuts that benefit the upper class are permanent shows where the intention lies.
Uh, all middle class will see roughly that. That's why it's a flat-tax rate reduction. Those cuts also expire in 2025, not 2 years. The democrats refused to make the tax cuts permanent, so if you want to complain you should turn around and start there.
And I bet you can't even explain how, except that you just "know" because of what you've heard. Not looked up, not researched or anything else.
However Trump is on record stating things that are stepping on our rights, and encouraging fear who do not follow him, which is not the America that I want to live in.
And yet the Obama administration did exactly that? Remember when they used a FISA warrants to go after reporters? Yeah, I bet you don't. So you don't want to live in an America where the rule of law is actually enforced, you know like with border enforcement. Or maybe you want to live in a country like Canada, where the best you can expect because of left-wing government policies is to hold minimum wage 3-4 jobs in order to make ends meet. Or in a country where your freedom of speech can be restricted because someones feelings are upset, there's plenty of countries to choose from in that case.
Here's something for you to think on. If Hillary had won, after the multiple times she helped destabilize the middle east, and said she wanted to drone foreign embassy's to kill people who made her look bad isn't far worse. Keeping in mind that she wanted the US to directly attack Russians in Syria. Do you think we'd be having this conversation right now?
Well, Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be a woefully inadequate president.
Really? So what does that make of someone like Trudeau in Canada, or Nanci Pelosi(Dem), or Keith "ethnostate are great" Ellision(dem leadership) for example. I realize that by looking at the leadership and high-leadership in the opposing party has already set an incredibly low bar, it seems, that by his own actions he's managed to accomplish more then Obama did and actually went through the house and senate instead of imposing rules, regulations and unconstitutional orders by EO's.
I'm British. I have no particular love for the US's Democratic party. There's a reason virtually everyone outside the US sees Trump as a laughing stock, and it's not because they're all rooting for the Democrats.
Well for one thing, that doesn't make you any less of a partisan hack. Second, that's a pretty broad brush, but then again after 8 years of Obama rolling over on the world stage and then fully destabilizing the middle east and tanking the EU? I can see why Trump is a laughing stock, yes that makes plenty of sense. Or maybe it's because you're simply believing what you're seeing without actually thinking?
The Republican party deserves a damn sight better than Trump. Even Republicans admit this, at least the ones with integrity.
The republicans with integrity are the ones who support Trump. The people you're talking about? RINO's, neo-cons, the same folks who were forced out the republican party by tea party groups and then were openly embraced by the democrats? You know, the same democrats who were quite happy to kill Gadafi and destabilize Syria leaving you with that nice mess you've got with 'refugees'.
Yup, there are plenty of unthinking partisan muppets out there, but I'm not among them.
What was that you said above? "Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be a woefully inadequate president." ahh...yes...
Same again. That I think the man is incompetent doesn't mean I disagree with everything he's ever said. Indeed, I support some of his actions as president, such as withdrawing from TPP.
So, someone who's made their own fortune is incompetent and believes that national sovereignty and their own citizens rights first is incompetent. Okay, why don't you explain without using talking points this time how that actually is so.
[citation needed]. Problem is, Trump says lots of things he doesn't really mean, like "middle class tax cut"
You mean kinda like this? It's not exactly an isolated indecent. Then again, considering the leadership of the DNC thinks that $1k-3k tax cuts for middle-class are crumbs, it's pretty easy to see what's going on. Why don't you explain how having a reduction in tax rates, really doesn't mean the middle class has more money.
What? Of course there is. Everyone sensible holds the opinion that Trump is a bumbling buffoon, but it remains a matter of opinion.
Kinda throws your "everyone sensible" right out the window, maybe you meant to say "everyone who's a partisan hack" or something along those lines. Really, your post isn't any different then the people who say "What Trump said, is really really bad!" but when they're shown that it was say Hillary or Obama who said it suddenly panic when their bubble is popped. Or when someone is given a viewpoint/statement that they agree with, and suddenly discover that it's Trump who said it. That they again panic as their bubble is popped.
Funny how that works, and how some people are so damned wrapped up in their derangement that they only agree with what they're being told.
Ask progressives. They're the ones screeching that Jordan Peterson is a alt-right white nationalist neo-nazi who supports a white ethnostate and is a racist. That's generally in the order of the screeching in many cases too.
FACT: the IRS targeted "liberal" groups, targeted them for a longer period of time, and the only ones to be denied tax-exempt status were liberal. Swirl those facts around in your butthurt and smoke it.
The fair article is actually blowing smoke up your ass. Especially since we already know that it was someone higher up the food chain the Learner who told her to do it. That after the courts got involved she kept doing it. That when it went to court, it was proven that she directly targeted tea party groups because they were tea party groups. There's physical and verbal testimony that it was direct targeting based on political affiliation.
The IRS didn't target those liberal groups because they were liberal, and that's where the whole article falls apart. On top of that, the same article is lying to you that the only ones denied were liberal. There were still several tea party groups that were denied, and had been since 2008/2009. The earliest that can be found for any liberal group as it is in that narrow brand is 2012ish.
Warrants do indeed require probable cause, but by all means explain how you get probable cause from a yahoo article. Which was shopped out by the same organization to the media, and was also writing the dossier. See, this is a fine case of citeogenisis in action. It would be no different then the police getting a warrant to search your PC for child porn because someone made a poster and stuck it up on a pole. The media then wrote the story on it. And it was later found out that the person and group who made up the poster was also the parent company and the primary author that wrote the story up as well.
By holding discussion of this topic to a different standard, you're trying to stifle the discussion
You mean by holding discussion of this topic to a real-world standard, it's a serious problem. Facts really do have a way of getting in the way don't they. Hey how about this one, that most of the "harassment" that women get online is from other women.
I wonder if you think mean girls is just a movie, and not a real-life phenomenon which also exists in many female dominated workplaces.
Lots of websites have removed their comment section. Mostly because of the fucktards.
Really? It seems that most sites have removed comment sections because the comment sections would point out contradictory or incorrect information that the site was presenting. Want a couple of good examples? NPR. They even pushed the narrative that removing the comment section would *increase* the quality of the news. During the brexit campaign, the telegraph.co.uk went out of their way with heavy-handed moderation against anyone who corrected their narrative on UKIP and brexit in general then shut theirs down too. The CBC pulled something similar, now they only allow comments on articles that push very specific agendas and will shut down comments in 30 mins to 1hr sometimes especially when people point out that it's either a lie, or them pushing an ideological agenda.
Don't worry. I'm sure the trolls will be out any time telling you that you're a neo-nazi, white nationalist, for daring to post the name of one of the foremost clinical psychologists in the world. (Because he's also a neo-nazi, white nationalist... for reasons)
I agree. Zuckerberg might be OCD about his "public perception" but I'm sure not. Why is this here?
GREETINGS FELLOW HUMAN! I too enjoy walking on my human legs. When doing so, I normally lead this sub-optimally intelligent canine to greater things. It's similar to how I shall lead my fellow humans after I become president!
The only gap there is what women *earn* not pay. If women go out and decide to work at a mine as a digger, they're going to be paid $20/hr just the same as a man. The man on the otherhand will be more likely to take that extra 20hrs/week in OT, and she is not. If a woman goes out and becomes a truck driver, she's going to make that same $0.60-0.70/mile plus dock-in/downtime repairs. But she's also not going to take higher stress routes through the NE corridor which have bonus rate pay because city/traffic volume. Where as a man will, repeatedly because it pushes his per/mile payout over $1.08/hr. But according to you and the author of that article, she's being *paid* less in both cases.
You mean just like that official intelligence report that said russians hacked hillary's email sever? Which was never investigated by the FBI, who also never had access to it...
You might have missed the original articles, you notice how all of those have "updated" in them? Right. Now go wander over to wayback machine or archive.is and read the articles before they were updated. You did my work for me. Now think really hard why those articles you posted are different, do you need a hint?
Yet you have no trouble calling her a liar without offering any evidence of your own.
She made the claim of harassment, not me. And there is still no proof. I also didn't call her a liar, you again made an assumption. Inability to read? Or are you injecting your own bias into this because you really need to white knight.
Using your reasoning: Because Hackertourist disagreed with me, he's harassing me.
You assume people are lying, assuming that the actions of a few attention-seekers apply to every woman who speaks about harassment. In other words, you believe in a conspiracy. That's what I object to.
Nice assumption. Too bad that's not how reality works, reality expects evidence and/or proof, something that she hasn't offered(much like the post I made above). And in the current state of "omg I'm being harassed because I'm *insert thing*" and it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again being a case where mean comments don't equal harassment. Anyone who actually cares about that, gets tired of it well...quickly.
The only thing you seem to object to is someone expecting evidence to be shown. You know, kind of like this. Makes me wonder how you function in the real world with skin as thick as tissue paper. Oh wait, that's harassment right?
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. Nothing actually stops these companies from "using corporate policy" and promoting it as such, or listing it as a core value. They want these regulations, all of them for some reason. Which likely means there's something tasty and delicious that's feeding them and most people aren't seeing.
*insert SJW's don't exist* and *whiny neo-puritain liberals are mainstream you stupid conservative* here.
This is a reality TV star who's spend most of his adult life doing self promotion and staying in the spotlight.
Wow, you really have read nothing about the guy have you? You think the last 10 years have been most of his adult life or something. That's kinda where you sunk any point you had, just a FYI.
They do not set a very high bar, but they set it quite a bit higher than Trump does. I'm a conservative who stays far away from the Republican Party, because they sold their souls and integrity for an election victory. I have a lot more admiration for Bill Crystal or a Never-Trumper than I do a fraudster.
So why don't you explain how a person who's sold the democrat party out for personal gain(that includes the neocon Bill Crystal) aren't fraudsters. While you're at it, why don't you explain how a guy who has it all - literally, figuratively, monetarily, decided to run for president and is a fraudster.
The only things Trump has accomplished, besides the Tax Bill, has been through the executive action. Many of those were also rejected for their illegality, but hey, they score political points with his base!
Really? Guess that's why SCOTUS has turned around and told the lower courts to stop with the bullshit right? Or did you miss that part, or the part where SCOTUS turned around allowed the actions again admonishing the lower courts for massive oversteps of legal authority.
Do you consider those old school Republicans, people like John McCain, Jeff Flake, George Bush (both), and so forth, to be the real Republicans, or that the new upstarts from the tea party to be the real Republicans?
None of those people are old school republicans, they're all neocons of some flavor. Remember? They're the people that had the loving adoration of people like David Frum who was a hard-core neocon and was bumrushed out by conservatives and republicans and was openly welcomed by democrats.
Remember, that majority of Republicans were opposed to Trump during the primaries
Remember that the vast majority of them were also neocons as well, or only RINO's? There were very few that were considered actually conservative or republican.
Very few people in the middle class will see anything like that. That those cuts also sunset in two years while all the other cuts that benefit the upper class are permanent shows where the intention lies.
Uh, all middle class will see roughly that. That's why it's a flat-tax rate reduction. Those cuts also expire in 2025, not 2 years. The democrats refused to make the tax cuts permanent, so if you want to complain you should turn around and start there.
Trump is just a Bad President and a Bad Person.
And I bet you can't even explain how, except that you just "know" because of what you've heard. Not looked up, not researched or anything else.
However Trump is on record stating things that are stepping on our rights, and encouraging fear who do not follow him, which is not the America that I want to live in.
And yet the Obama administration did exactly that? Remember when they used a FISA warrants to go after reporters? Yeah, I bet you don't. So you don't want to live in an America where the rule of law is actually enforced, you know like with border enforcement. Or maybe you want to live in a country like Canada, where the best you can expect because of left-wing government policies is to hold minimum wage 3-4 jobs in order to make ends meet. Or in a country where your freedom of speech can be restricted because someones feelings are upset, there's plenty of countries to choose from in that case.
Here's something for you to think on. If Hillary had won, after the multiple times she helped destabilize the middle east, and said she wanted to drone foreign embassy's to kill people who made her look bad isn't far worse. Keeping in mind that she wanted the US to directly attack Russians in Syria. Do you think we'd be having this conversation right now?
Well, Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be a woefully inadequate president.
Really? So what does that make of someone like Trudeau in Canada, or Nanci Pelosi(Dem), or Keith "ethnostate are great" Ellision(dem leadership) for example. I realize that by looking at the leadership and high-leadership in the opposing party has already set an incredibly low bar, it seems, that by his own actions he's managed to accomplish more then Obama did and actually went through the house and senate instead of imposing rules, regulations and unconstitutional orders by EO's.
I'm British. I have no particular love for the US's Democratic party. There's a reason virtually everyone outside the US sees Trump as a laughing stock, and it's not because they're all rooting for the Democrats.
Well for one thing, that doesn't make you any less of a partisan hack. Second, that's a pretty broad brush, but then again after 8 years of Obama rolling over on the world stage and then fully destabilizing the middle east and tanking the EU? I can see why Trump is a laughing stock, yes that makes plenty of sense. Or maybe it's because you're simply believing what you're seeing without actually thinking?
The Republican party deserves a damn sight better than Trump. Even Republicans admit this, at least the ones with integrity.
The republicans with integrity are the ones who support Trump. The people you're talking about? RINO's, neo-cons, the same folks who were forced out the republican party by tea party groups and then were openly embraced by the democrats? You know, the same democrats who were quite happy to kill Gadafi and destabilize Syria leaving you with that nice mess you've got with 'refugees'.
Yup, there are plenty of unthinking partisan muppets out there, but I'm not among them.
What was that you said above? "Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be a woefully inadequate president." ahh...yes...
Same again. That I think the man is incompetent doesn't mean I disagree with everything he's ever said. Indeed, I support some of his actions as president, such as withdrawing from TPP.
So, someone who's made their own fortune is incompetent and believes that national sovereignty and their own citizens rights first is incompetent. Okay, why don't you explain without using talking points this time how that actually is so.
[citation needed]. Problem is, Trump says lots of things he doesn't really mean, like "middle class tax cut"
You mean kinda like this? It's not exactly an isolated indecent. Then again, considering the leadership of the DNC thinks that $1k-3k tax cuts for middle-class are crumbs, it's pretty easy to see what's going on. Why don't you explain how having a reduction in tax rates, really doesn't mean the middle class has more money.
Just like all these shining examples too right? Don't worry, I'm sure it's all just a gigantic misunderstanding .....
What? Of course there is. Everyone sensible holds the opinion that Trump is a bumbling buffoon, but it remains a matter of opinion.
Kinda throws your "everyone sensible" right out the window, maybe you meant to say "everyone who's a partisan hack" or something along those lines. Really, your post isn't any different then the people who say "What Trump said, is really really bad!" but when they're shown that it was say Hillary or Obama who said it suddenly panic when their bubble is popped. Or when someone is given a viewpoint/statement that they agree with, and suddenly discover that it's Trump who said it. That they again panic as their bubble is popped.
Funny how that works, and how some people are so damned wrapped up in their derangement that they only agree with what they're being told.
is this what lead poisoning looks like?
Ask progressives. They're the ones screeching that Jordan Peterson is a alt-right white nationalist neo-nazi who supports a white ethnostate and is a racist. That's generally in the order of the screeching in many cases too.
FACT: the IRS targeted "liberal" groups, targeted them for a longer period of time, and the only ones to be denied tax-exempt status were liberal. Swirl those facts around in your butthurt and smoke it.
The fair article is actually blowing smoke up your ass. Especially since we already know that it was someone higher up the food chain the Learner who told her to do it. That after the courts got involved she kept doing it. That when it went to court, it was proven that she directly targeted tea party groups because they were tea party groups. There's physical and verbal testimony that it was direct targeting based on political affiliation.
The IRS didn't target those liberal groups because they were liberal, and that's where the whole article falls apart. On top of that, the same article is lying to you that the only ones denied were liberal. There were still several tea party groups that were denied, and had been since 2008/2009. The earliest that can be found for any liberal group as it is in that narrow brand is 2012ish.
Warrants do indeed require probable cause, but by all means explain how you get probable cause from a yahoo article. Which was shopped out by the same organization to the media, and was also writing the dossier. See, this is a fine case of citeogenisis in action. It would be no different then the police getting a warrant to search your PC for child porn because someone made a poster and stuck it up on a pole. The media then wrote the story on it. And it was later found out that the person and group who made up the poster was also the parent company and the primary author that wrote the story up as well.
By holding discussion of this topic to a different standard, you're trying to stifle the discussion
You mean by holding discussion of this topic to a real-world standard, it's a serious problem. Facts really do have a way of getting in the way don't they. Hey how about this one, that most of the "harassment" that women get online is from other women.
I wonder if you think mean girls is just a movie, and not a real-life phenomenon which also exists in many female dominated workplaces.
I remember Fox News comments section before they shut it down, that place was a magnet for all kinds of vile idiots.
Fox News still has comments just a FYI.
Lots of websites have removed their comment section. Mostly because of the fucktards.
Really? It seems that most sites have removed comment sections because the comment sections would point out contradictory or incorrect information that the site was presenting. Want a couple of good examples? NPR. They even pushed the narrative that removing the comment section would *increase* the quality of the news. During the brexit campaign, the telegraph.co.uk went out of their way with heavy-handed moderation against anyone who corrected their narrative on UKIP and brexit in general then shut theirs down too. The CBC pulled something similar, now they only allow comments on articles that push very specific agendas and will shut down comments in 30 mins to 1hr sometimes especially when people point out that it's either a lie, or them pushing an ideological agenda.
Don't worry. I'm sure the trolls will be out any time telling you that you're a neo-nazi, white nationalist, for daring to post the name of one of the foremost clinical psychologists in the world. (Because he's also a neo-nazi, white nationalist ... for reasons)
p.s. Clean your room.
I agree. Zuckerberg might be OCD about his "public perception" but I'm sure not. Why is this here?
GREETINGS FELLOW HUMAN! I too enjoy walking on my human legs. When doing so, I normally lead this sub-optimally intelligent canine to greater things. It's similar to how I shall lead my fellow humans after I become president!
The only gap there is what women *earn* not pay. If women go out and decide to work at a mine as a digger, they're going to be paid $20/hr just the same as a man. The man on the otherhand will be more likely to take that extra 20hrs/week in OT, and she is not. If a woman goes out and becomes a truck driver, she's going to make that same $0.60-0.70/mile plus dock-in/downtime repairs. But she's also not going to take higher stress routes through the NE corridor which have bonus rate pay because city/traffic volume. Where as a man will, repeatedly because it pushes his per/mile payout over $1.08/hr. But according to you and the author of that article, she's being *paid* less in both cases.
You mean just like that official intelligence report that said russians hacked hillary's email sever? Which was never investigated by the FBI, who also never had access to it...
You might have missed the original articles, you notice how all of those have "updated" in them? Right. Now go wander over to wayback machine or archive.is and read the articles before they were updated. You did my work for me. Now think really hard why those articles you posted are different, do you need a hint?
Come on Mashiki, we know you keep lists of copy/paste links for when it suits you to post them.
Where's the fun in that? Everyone already knows that you have the inability to read something, and actually understanding the topic manner at hand.
Yet you have no trouble calling her a liar without offering any evidence of your own.
She made the claim of harassment, not me. And there is still no proof. I also didn't call her a liar, you again made an assumption. Inability to read? Or are you injecting your own bias into this because you really need to white knight.
Using your reasoning: Because Hackertourist disagreed with me, he's harassing me.
You assume people are lying, assuming that the actions of a few attention-seekers apply to every woman who speaks about harassment. In other words, you believe in a conspiracy. That's what I object to.
Nice assumption. Too bad that's not how reality works, reality expects evidence and/or proof, something that she hasn't offered(much like the post I made above). And in the current state of "omg I'm being harassed because I'm *insert thing*" and it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again being a case where mean comments don't equal harassment. Anyone who actually cares about that, gets tired of it well...quickly.
The only thing you seem to object to is someone expecting evidence to be shown. You know, kind of like this. Makes me wonder how you function in the real world with skin as thick as tissue paper. Oh wait, that's harassment right?