The intent is not stupid. Discrimination is wrong. Laws to prevent discrimination in hiring are absolutely a good thing.
It is however difficult to write such a law in a way that also precludes or prevents you (as the person doing the hiring) from lying.
Age discrimination is especially important to prohibit in a society that seems to be intent on forcing its old people to work until they day they die, especially as they keep trying to gut/eliminate/move-back-eligibility-age-of Social Security.
If you could actually live of Social Security alone, and begin collecting it at (let's just say) age 55, then I would be ok with companies not hiring anyone over 55, as we have then as a society deemed that persons over 55 are no longer required or expected to work, and can enjoy their older years without worrying about employment.
But currently we have no legally defined "senior citizen" status, only "minor citizen" (18yo). Anyone born after 1960 has to wait to collect Social Security until age 67. However Social Security is very rarely enough to live on, even for those who also receive the "survivor benefit", so even those individuals still effectively have to work until the day they due (since the majority of people since the 1970s have no retirement plans/funds in place, due to the collapse of most pension systems, reduction/stagnation in effective wages and all the other changes in worker compensation during the past 40 years of "trickledown" corporate-favoring nonsense that has screwed workers).
So....as long as people are expected to work until death, age discrimination laws will be important.
his posts fall into 3 general categories: -science misinformation -bad understanding of the Constitution -expressing some form of bigotry, mostly against women, homosexuals, and Muslims.
Sorry mods, but pointing out someone's history of troll posts is not itself trolling.
Mi has a history of posting science misinformation, as well as calling actual scientists (including climate scientists) who come here liars. Somehow he apparently thinks he knows more than actual researchers in the field.
Mi also has a history of bigoted and discriminatory statements, against women, ethnic and religious groups, and LGBT persons.
These are facts. You don't have to read very far into his post history to find examples, as he provides new examples daily, which is what I said. Pointing this out is not trolling.
So your reply to someone stating that "the shooters in the Netherlands aren't muslim" is to google for "muslims in morocco" ?
See, this is why you're a useless bigot.
They be ethnically Moroccan or Muslim in the ethnic sense, but that isn't the same thing as being a Muslim in the religious sense. That's like blaming Catholicism for the Irish and Italian mafias in the US.
A group who specific hides behind "freedom of speech" in order to say racist and bigoted stuff, who specifically invites in noted bigots Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, wanted exactly this to happen. The only person missing from this event was Terry Jones.
i dont know whats worse: the blatant bullshit this idiot spews, or the idiot who modded him insightful. of course, thats assuming he's not just sock puppet modding his own comments, which im already half convinced he does.
no one with more than a single brain cell should be capable of stating or reading the words
"They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them [LGBT] out in any way."
let alone be taken seriously and modded up for saying it.
theres also the "universal health care" presented once again as if the idea is a brand new concept never before tried, and his once again showing his support for the ownership of politicians by those with the most "speech".
Clinton (both of them) is a centrist, a "new democrat", almost identical politically to the moderate republicans of the 50s, with the biggest exceptions being things like gay rights. He was only "liberal" in comparison to the extreme conservatism the GOP has carved out for itself as it pushed ever more rightward.
cause there is only one tax system in the country right?
cause there's no system of other taxes that disproportionately affect poor and low income people, causing them to pay a far higher percentage of their income in overall taxation, right?
Why do these people act so shock that the agency that is largely responsible for space holds most of the assets in space, even if theose assets ultimately complement other agencies? I thought cooperation between agencies is a good thing? (Or should scientific research have the sort of systemic walls between agencies that let to the intelligence failure known as 9/11 ??)
NASA has the bulk of space based sensors monitoring the Earth. This is of course, completely logical. Even for assets actually owned by other agencies, they still interact and support them, particularly in the launching and maintaining aspects.
But NASA has the bulk. So the gameplan here lays itself out. First they reduce NASA's earth monitoring capability. Note they dont kill it outright...they rarely do. First you reduce its capability and effectiveness to justify further cuts in the future. And then you just never replace that capability in the agencies they argued should have it.
We know this is the game plan, because the GOP has -already tried- to interfere with NOAA's earth monitoring and climate research capabilities, and defund it's climate research. Whereas with NASA They claim that work is best left to NOAA, when talking about NOAA they instead claim that NOAA's true mission is "weather forecasting", not "climate research", as if understanding the bigger picture better and monitoring the planet wouldn't improve the ability to predict weather to as a byproduct.
Slashdot Mirror
The intent is not stupid. Discrimination is wrong. Laws to prevent discrimination in hiring are absolutely a good thing.
It is however difficult to write such a law in a way that also precludes or prevents you (as the person doing the hiring) from lying.
Age discrimination is especially important to prohibit in a society that seems to be intent on forcing its old people to work until they day they die, especially as they keep trying to gut/eliminate/move-back-eligibility-age-of Social Security.
If you could actually live of Social Security alone, and begin collecting it at (let's just say) age 55, then I would be ok with companies not hiring anyone over 55, as we have then as a society deemed that persons over 55 are no longer required or expected to work, and can enjoy their older years without worrying about employment.
But currently we have no legally defined "senior citizen" status, only "minor citizen" (18yo). Anyone born after 1960 has to wait to collect Social Security until age 67. However Social Security is very rarely enough to live on, even for those who also receive the "survivor benefit", so even those individuals still effectively have to work until the day they due (since the majority of people since the 1970s have no retirement plans/funds in place, due to the collapse of most pension systems, reduction/stagnation in effective wages and all the other changes in worker compensation during the past 40 years of "trickledown" corporate-favoring nonsense that has screwed workers).
So....as long as people are expected to work until death, age discrimination laws will be important.
that is a blatantly false statement.
he's not interest in actual facts.
his posts fall into 3 general categories:
-science misinformation
-bad understanding of the Constitution
-expressing some form of bigotry, mostly against women, homosexuals, and Muslims.
Sorry mods, but pointing out someone's history of troll posts is not itself trolling.
Mi has a history of posting science misinformation, as well as calling actual scientists (including climate scientists) who come here liars. Somehow he apparently thinks he knows more than actual researchers in the field.
Mi also has a history of bigoted and discriminatory statements, against women, ethnic and religious groups, and LGBT persons.
These are facts. You don't have to read very far into his post history to find examples, as he provides new examples daily, which is what I said. Pointing this out is not trolling.
Bingo.
It was one group of extremists intentionally provoking/baiting another, while hiding their bigotry behind free speech.
The organizers got exactly what they wanted.
So your reply to someone stating that "the shooters in the Netherlands aren't muslim" is to google for "muslims in morocco" ?
See, this is why you're a useless bigot.
They be ethnically Moroccan or Muslim in the ethnic sense, but that isn't the same thing as being a Muslim in the religious sense.
That's like blaming Catholicism for the Irish and Italian mafias in the US.
Just because "terrorists are bad" doesn't mean that bigots who hide behind freedom of speech "are good".
In fact properly termed both groups are bigoted extremists.
One simply baited the other into a "justified shooting".
BINGO.
A group who specific hides behind "freedom of speech" in order to say racist and bigoted stuff, who specifically invites in noted bigots Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, wanted exactly this to happen. The only person missing from this event was Terry Jones.
i dont know whats worse: the blatant bullshit this idiot spews, or the idiot who modded him insightful.
of course, thats assuming he's not just sock puppet modding his own comments, which im already half convinced he does.
no one with more than a single brain cell should be capable of stating or reading the words
"They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them [LGBT] out in any way."
let alone be taken seriously and modded up for saying it.
theres also the "universal health care" presented once again as if the idea is a brand new concept never before tried, and his once again showing his support for the ownership of politicians by those with the most "speech".
oh fuck off troll.
your bigotry is already well noted, you dont have to reinforce it every day.
"Interesting" because its the opposite of what the majority of the Democrats espouse as they give Wall Street it's daily reach-around.
He cleaned up Bush's fuckups, and you still find a way to complain about it.
No, you just proved you dont economic well.
Bullshit.
Clinton (both of them) is a centrist, a "new democrat", almost identical politically to the moderate republicans of the 50s, with the biggest exceptions being things like gay rights. He was only "liberal" in comparison to the extreme conservatism the GOP has carved out for itself as it pushed ever more rightward.
Mostly cleaned up Bush's mess.
Probably not.
But he, along with Warren raising a ruckus in the Senate, can pull her to the left out of her overly wall street friendly safe zone.
we're not.
specifically because of the programs we created since the 1930s.
without those programs the 2008 shitstorm would have made the 1930s look like a damp fart.
but the programs did their job: they arrested the fall and kept money moving in the system and reduced the severity of the crash.
how much do they pay you to write this shit for them?
cause there is only one tax system in the country right?
cause there's no system of other taxes that disproportionately affect poor and low income people,
causing them to pay a far higher percentage of their income in overall taxation, right?
(idiot)
cause lord knows its not like social democratic policies have EVER been tried before, right?
just like guns are a totally unique problem to the US that no country has ever faced or solved before, right?
or healthcare?
or border policies?
or telecom regulations?
no, you're right. these are totallly unique things never before seen by anyone except the US.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
http://archives.politicususa.c...
Why do these people act so shock that the agency that is largely responsible for space holds most of the assets in space, even if theose assets ultimately complement other agencies? I thought cooperation between agencies is a good thing? (Or should scientific research have the sort of systemic walls between agencies that let to the intelligence failure known as 9/11 ??)
NASA has the bulk of space based sensors monitoring the Earth.
This is of course, completely logical.
Even for assets actually owned by other agencies, they still interact and support them, particularly in the launching and maintaining aspects.
But NASA has the bulk. So the gameplan here lays itself out. First they reduce NASA's earth monitoring capability. Note they dont kill it outright...they rarely do. First you reduce its capability and effectiveness to justify further cuts in the future. And then you just never replace that capability in the agencies they argued should have it.
Such as:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
We know this is the game plan, because the GOP has -already tried- to interfere with NOAA's earth monitoring and climate research capabilities, and defund it's climate research. Whereas with NASA They claim that work is best left to NOAA, when talking about NOAA they instead claim that NOAA's true mission is "weather forecasting", not "climate research", as if understanding the bigger picture better and monitoring the planet wouldn't improve the ability to predict weather to as a byproduct.
before you do that, try googling their actual charter and mission statement.
The Republicans in congress did NOT kill-off any climate science work at NOAA or USGS, or EPA, etc.
Yes they fucking did, anonymous shill.
Seriously. There's no way you aren't a paid misinformer.
This image explains you perfectly:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The trend since 1980 is down.
Clearly down, such than even an idiot like you should be able to grasp it.
A small ONE YEAR "recovery" from 2012 to 2013 doesn't reverse the over all 40 year trend.