You ran proprietary software on a closed source OS from a vendor that operates sweatshops with suicide netting and, most importantly, has a track record for disrespecting user rights.
Uh huh. And how many of your electronics have not been made by Foxxcon or another "sweatshop" contractor?
...mice or cooperative multitasking to complain about. So the Hatebois whine about "walled gardens" in between playing games on their walled-garden consoles, and bitch about how much iTunes sucks when they've never even used the damn program.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you're American. Let's say you're a "taxpayer" (which some take to mean those that earn enough they pay personal income tax, in which case you're an ass to the poor, but that's another thing). Do you then have a right to walk into a nuclear weapons facility to inspect it, or perhaps you paid for what the facility can do, not to access to all aspects of the result?
Let's say you can make a relevant comparison, rather than an obnoxious red herring. Feel free to post it.
...to sell the $750 billion in notes/securities etc if the bill passes.
On the flip side, the Saudis have been conducting economic war on the US and Canada by flooring oil prices with over production.
Nah, the U.S. has been more than fine with that dumping....because geopolitics. Crashing the oil market has hurt Russia, allowed for the right-wingers in Venezuela to come back into power, and will greatly delay Iran's ability to make up for the billions they lost to sanctions. Sanctions, levied against the Iran for the nuclear weapons program that both the CIA and Mossad say Iran didn't have. Because geopolitics.
The news-bit about Mr. Nye's call to prosecute "deniers" was submitted to Slashdot yesterday
Neat how the RWNJ's are ignoring the part where that's talking about prosecuting companies that spent hundreds of millions on denying climate change to protect their company profits, Same as the cigarette and asbestos industries spent decades denying that their products were inherently harmful.
When the opponents of the supposedly scientific theory you like are not merely wrong or even stupid, but are criminals, you immediately stop being a blah blah blah blah
Look, Denialists, lets make a deal: you guys can all move out to the Maldives. If it was all just a hoax cooked up by Al Gore, you can enjoy your beachfront property, sipping martinis and mocking those stupid liberals. If it's not a hoax, then you can all go fuck yourselves under rising sea waters.
I have never taken pregnancy leave. I have a stay-at-home partner that handles all of the care of our children. In the last 5 years I've had precisely one sick day. I was hired "at the absolute cap" for salary in my last position. Two years later I found that my less experienced male coworkers with lesser job titles were each making $15,000 per year more than me. Why was this? Because, and this is a _direct quote_ "They have a family to support."
Bit of a disconnect there, but maybe you just had a real asshole for a boss. Question: think there are any hard-working men out there that have been taken advantage of an asshole boss? That were paid less than the asshole boss's friends?
Um yes? I've frequently been accused of being an "SJW" and have frequently written such things.
Not in any place that has SJW's, you haven't. Otherwise you would have been sneered as a mens rights activist, and/or told to STFU because women have had it worse.
The stupid... it burns.
Nice shovel you have there.
It's quite remarkable how much dumbassery you managed to cram into a scant 19 words.
Don't twist your ankle in that hole you're digging.
Plenty of self-identified feminists protested AGAINST the vietnam war.
Hey. Dumbfuck. Plenty of men protested the war, too - but their choices were to go to jail, flee to Canada, or be sent overseas to kill people minding their own damn business, or be killed themselves. Not to mention the chickenshit cop-out of crying about being against the war when the point is that your ass is exempt from the draft.
On the day in 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls. The decision came several months after President Richard M. Nixon had easily won reelection, running against Democratic Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, an outspoken opponent of the war.
In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon had promised to end the draft. During his time out of office, the GOP nominee had become interested in the prospect of an all-volunteer force. Nixon was influenced by Martin Anderson, an associate professor at Columbia University.
Nixon thought ending the draft could be an effective political weapon against the burgeoning anti-war movement. He believed middle-class youths would lose interest in protesting the war once it became clear that they would not have to fight, and possibly die, in Vietnam.
What feminists are actually asking for is that men take on a more equal share of the child rearing duties.
Then they can work more hours so their partners can spend more time at home. But how is that addressed by the sloganeering of "equal pay for equal work" and "women make 76 cents on the dollar"?
You don't know what you are talking about. Hundreds of thousands of women enlisted and served during WWI and WWII.
1) Google the definition of enlisting 2) Google the definition of being drafted 3) Serving in a hospital isn't the same thing as serving in a trench, or storming a beach 4) Tell us again who doesn't know what they are talking about
The ban on women serving in combat roles was lifted in 2013 and women have applied for those roles.
And yet remain exempt from the Selective Service Act. See 4) again.
As long as we're going for non-sequiturs, lets go all out.
Believe it or not, Congress knew and understood very clearly when they passed the Equal Pay Act that it cost businesses more to employ women because of Pregnancy, for example
For the same reason it costs more to employ men who are likely to take extended paternity leave or drop out of the workforce entirely for several years. And why they make less money when they rejoin the workforce, with less experience than their former co-workers.
many women work part-time or work in fields that don't pay much. This has nothing to do with the choice of the individual, I guess any female can have a career as successful as a man, its a question of individual choice not of discrimination. Feminists should just realize that most women chose to raise a family instead of focusing their job as much as men.
If a man worked part time or stepped out of the work force for ten years to be a stay-at-home dad, he, too, would make less money than his co-workers that went on with their careers - male or female.
What feminists are actually demanding is equal pay for less work. Less hours on the job, less experience, and in less stressful or physically dangerous positions.
What you describe are exactly the kind of gender stereotypes and expectations set by them that those evil "SJWs" are arguing against. (And yes, they do raise the issue with male stereotypes,
Riiiiight, just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero. Go over to Jezebel and say buttkiss about a negative stereotype against men, and tell us how many times you're accused of being that dreaded spawn of Satan, a mens rights activist.
A company acts responsibility without using Fight Club's recall formula? Before dozens of people end up dead, like the Ford Exploder, Firestone edition, or GM who thought lives were too expensive to spend another fifty cents per ignition? Get a life, dooshbag.
I hate to tell you this, but your sources are from some of the most extreme and biased anti-Trump media outlets. Try a little more balance, if you can.
Try being less of a tool. If Fox finds a recording of one of Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches and broadcasts it, does that mean it didn't really happen because it's Fox?
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Okay. Stop fucking screaming about it already. We get it, atmospheric carbon is ridiculous now. But that simply isn't important.
Translation: Stage 5 of climate change denialsim: okay, climate change was a hoax, and no it's not being caused by the sun, or volcanoes, or whatever stupid bullshit you guys drag up to deflect from your own responsibility. Now we're at, okay, AGW is happening, but it's toooo haaaard to do anything about it!
Problem: the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
We could have solved this problem decades ago, by moving to renewable energy sources. But nooooooo, we had to listen to the apologists for Philip Morris first. Sorry, that autocorrected from Exxon for some reason.
Listening to climate change deniers now makes as much sense as listening to people who were chickenhawk warmongers on Iraq for what to do about ISIS or Syria.
Slashdot Mirror
The freedom to have your infant contract measles because neighborhood fucknuts wont vaccinate their kids?
Fuck. That.
You want to be petri dishes for diseases that should be functionally extinct, move out to your own deserted island and leave the rest of us alone.
Uh huh. And how many of your electronics have not been made by Foxxcon or another "sweatshop" contractor?
First words in his post:
So, who's the fool here?
Or willfully obtuse. So, again: relevant analogy. Do you have one, or not?
...mice or cooperative multitasking to complain about. So the Hatebois whine about "walled gardens" in between playing games on their walled-garden consoles, and bitch about how much iTunes sucks when they've never even used the damn program.
Let's say you can make a relevant comparison, rather than an obnoxious red herring. Feel free to post it.
With an emphasis on military service and jingoism, or fascism for short.
The faux-victim mentality would be a match.
...to sell the $750 billion in notes/securities etc if the bill passes.
Nah, the U.S. has been more than fine with that dumping....because geopolitics. Crashing the oil market has hurt Russia, allowed for the right-wingers in Venezuela to come back into power, and will greatly delay Iran's ability to make up for the billions they lost to sanctions. Sanctions, levied against the Iran for the nuclear weapons program that both the CIA and Mossad say Iran didn't have. Because geopolitics.
Neat how the RWNJ's are ignoring the part where that's talking about prosecuting companies that spent hundreds of millions on denying climate change to protect their company profits, Same as the cigarette and asbestos industries spent decades denying that their products were inherently harmful.
Look, Denialists, lets make a deal: you guys can all move out to the Maldives. If it was all just a hoax cooked up by Al Gore, you can enjoy your beachfront property, sipping martinis and mocking those stupid liberals. If it's not a hoax, then you can all go fuck yourselves under rising sea waters.
Deal?
Bit of a disconnect there, but maybe you just had a real asshole for a boss. Question: think there are any hard-working men out there that have been taken advantage of an asshole boss? That were paid less than the asshole boss's friends?
Not in any place that has SJW's, you haven't. Otherwise you would have been sneered as a mens rights activist, and/or told to STFU because women have had it worse.
Nice shovel you have there.
Don't twist your ankle in that hole you're digging.
Hey. Dumbfuck. Plenty of men protested the war, too - but their choices were to go to jail, flee to Canada, or be sent overseas to kill people minding their own damn business, or be killed themselves. Not to mention the chickenshit cop-out of crying about being against the war when the point is that your ass is exempt from the draft.
She should check and see if there's a prize for being the first one to do so. As for being over in 1971:
Then you're blatantly ignoring the fact that feminists leave experience, hours worked per week and hazard pay out of their calculations.
Then the wives should work more so their husbands can work less and spend more time at home. The math here isn't hard....unless you're a feminist.
Then they can work more hours so their partners can spend more time at home. But how is that addressed by the sloganeering of "equal pay for equal work" and "women make 76 cents on the dollar"?
1) Google the definition of enlisting
2) Google the definition of being drafted
3) Serving in a hospital isn't the same thing as serving in a trench, or storming a beach
4) Tell us again who doesn't know what they are talking about
And yet remain exempt from the Selective Service Act. See 4) again.
As long as we're going for non-sequiturs, lets go all out.
For the same reason it costs more to employ men who are likely to take extended paternity leave or drop out of the workforce entirely for several years. And why they make less money when they rejoin the workforce, with less experience than their former co-workers.
Equality is neat that way.
But it is, for reasons you even list:
If a man worked part time or stepped out of the work force for ten years to be a stay-at-home dad, he, too, would make less money than his co-workers that went on with their careers - male or female.
What feminists are actually demanding is equal pay for less work. Less hours on the job, less experience, and in less stressful or physically dangerous positions.
Riiiiight, just like all the 70's feminist who ran around demanding that women be drafted into the Vietnam War: zero. Go over to Jezebel and say buttkiss about a negative stereotype against men, and tell us how many times you're accused of being that dreaded spawn of Satan, a mens rights activist.
A company acts responsibility without using Fight Club's recall formula? Before dozens of people end up dead, like the Ford Exploder, Firestone edition, or GM who thought lives were too expensive to spend another fifty cents per ignition? Get a life, dooshbag.
You don't say. Just how do you overthrow an oppressive oligarchy that's ruled for a thousand years in a neat, tidy and bloodless fashion?
Because Fox is too far to the left for the authoritarians, Randians and anarcho-captialists that make up half of Slashdot.
Try being less of a tool. If Fox finds a recording of one of Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches and broadcasts it, does that mean it didn't really happen because it's Fox?
Translation: Stage 5 of climate change denialsim: okay, climate change was a hoax, and no it's not being caused by the sun, or volcanoes, or whatever stupid bullshit you guys drag up to deflect from your own responsibility. Now we're at, okay, AGW is happening, but it's toooo haaaard to do anything about it!
Problem: the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
We could have solved this problem decades ago, by moving to renewable energy sources. But nooooooo, we had to listen to the apologists for Philip Morris first. Sorry, that autocorrected from Exxon for some reason.
Listening to climate change deniers now makes as much sense as listening to people who were chickenhawk warmongers on Iraq for what to do about ISIS or Syria.
Self-awareness?