I agree with you, but I find it rich to watch the left suggest that the courts shouldn't be used, and we should have faith in freedom and market forces
As for the bakery issue, it's amazing how people can tell themselves they support civil rights and then use that very argument to demand the government to force someone to give their labor to someone else against their will. Somewhere, you folks on the left forgot that freedom is about permitting the KKK to call black people animals, skinheads to call Jews various things I will not repeat, and -- yes -- permitting a business owner to refuse service for reasons you think are unfair. Especially when the "negative impact" in this case is non-existent, other than perhaps hurt feelings.
I can't speak for everywhere, obviously, but here in Texas about half of my friends are lesbians and none of them have ever expressed fear of being fired for being gay. They have, however, joked about being less likely to be fired for fear of lawsuit.
What actions are you afraid of? 2 constitutional amendments? This is an honest question. I have asked this honest question many times, both in this form and when I'm beating up the religious right for demanding actions.
Sir, you seem to be confused. When we talk about valuing diversity, we mean we value seeing different levels of melanin levels and people preferring different permutations of genital and orafice penetration. We do not -- I repeat, do not -- mean it's okay to have diversity of thought. Please subscribe to the worldview assigned to you according to your melanin level or sexual preference.
This is not news. It is rumor. Trump campaign has denied that a selection has been made. I don't think that is normal campaign BS. This week we have seen "omg it's definitely newt" and "omg it's definitely Christie" and now "omg it's definitely pence."
You didn't read very carefully. It may be logical on some political scale, like you say, to make illogical TRADE deals that make both parties worse off. But the point is that if such punishment resulted in UK GDP hit, that definitely doesn't prove the Remainers right.
No you didn't quite understand. The result itself will change the composition of voters who come out a second time. People who want Leave will be less motivated to vote, because Leave won. People who want Remain will be more motivated to vote, because they unexpectedly lost. A redo is not a confirmation. It is a different result brought about by a different set of voters under different circumstances. The measurement itself of the first ref changes the thing you are trying to measure. Whether it is a good or bad thing is not something I am passing judgment on. But it is not confirmatory like you are suggesting. The right analogy would be you clicking a delete button, and then a "are you sure?" confirmation box showing up on someone else' computer.
It does appear that EU countries may act childishly and refuse good trade terms on emotional grounds. That is human, but is self contradictory to the argument that emotional people like you act like you're making, which is that the natural order of a Brexit will leave UK worse off. Making illogical trade decisions based on good-riddance spitefulness isn't the natural order of things. If you were confident in your logical argument, I would think you wouldn't need to create artificial barriers to tip the scale and make UK worse off.
I don't know whether "confirming" was the intent. But certainly a second referendum would NOT be confirmatory. The result would cause a different set of people to vote in the redo. Many likely did not vote because they thought Remain would win, and would vote in a redo now that they saw Leave win. Some didn't know how they felt but with Leave winning are now scared, and would vote in a redo. These are not confirmations. These are new and different results.
Nice try. I wasn't disputing anything the article said. I was intentionally adding a point not covered in the article but likely a contributing factor.
You seem to have taken a left turn somewhere. I didn't make any generalization of any country, nor did I suggest anyone likes or dislikes their welfare state. I simply pointed out a likely unintended admission that unemployed people are able to hold higher standards for employment, because the welfare state permits them to live comfortably enough to turn down work. Your vulgar reaction to a pretty minor logical point says quite a bit about you.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be surprised to learn you are not breaking from libertarians at all. At least based on your description.
I'm a billionaire on a non-GAAP basis
I agree with you, but I find it rich to watch the left suggest that the courts shouldn't be used, and we should have faith in freedom and market forces
Like calling every black conservative ever "Uncle Tom"?
As for the bakery issue, it's amazing how people can tell themselves they support civil rights and then use that very argument to demand the government to force someone to give their labor to someone else against their will. Somewhere, you folks on the left forgot that freedom is about permitting the KKK to call black people animals, skinheads to call Jews various things I will not repeat, and -- yes -- permitting a business owner to refuse service for reasons you think are unfair. Especially when the "negative impact" in this case is non-existent, other than perhaps hurt feelings.
I can't speak for everywhere, obviously, but here in Texas about half of my friends are lesbians and none of them have ever expressed fear of being fired for being gay. They have, however, joked about being less likely to be fired for fear of lawsuit.
What actions are you afraid of? 2 constitutional amendments? This is an honest question. I have asked this honest question many times, both in this form and when I'm beating up the religious right for demanding actions.
What negative impacts would he suffer due to being gay that he does not suffer due to the insulation of his money?
Sir, you seem to be confused. When we talk about valuing diversity, we mean we value seeing different levels of melanin levels and people preferring different permutations of genital and orafice penetration. We do not -- I repeat, do not -- mean it's okay to have diversity of thought. Please subscribe to the worldview assigned to you according to your melanin level or sexual preference.
This is not news. It is rumor. Trump campaign has denied that a selection has been made. I don't think that is normal campaign BS. This week we have seen "omg it's definitely newt" and "omg it's definitely Christie" and now "omg it's definitely pence."
At least you only fell for this one.
Your reply doesn't make sense. I don't think you understand this thread. I'm not sure how to respond.
You didn't read very carefully. It may be logical on some political scale, like you say, to make illogical TRADE deals that make both parties worse off. But the point is that if such punishment resulted in UK GDP hit, that definitely doesn't prove the Remainers right.
No you didn't quite understand. The result itself will change the composition of voters who come out a second time. People who want Leave will be less motivated to vote, because Leave won. People who want Remain will be more motivated to vote, because they unexpectedly lost. A redo is not a confirmation. It is a different result brought about by a different set of voters under different circumstances. The measurement itself of the first ref changes the thing you are trying to measure. Whether it is a good or bad thing is not something I am passing judgment on. But it is not confirmatory like you are suggesting. The right analogy would be you clicking a delete button, and then a "are you sure?" confirmation box showing up on someone else' computer.
It does appear that EU countries may act childishly and refuse good trade terms on emotional grounds. That is human, but is self contradictory to the argument that emotional people like you act like you're making, which is that the natural order of a Brexit will leave UK worse off. Making illogical trade decisions based on good-riddance spitefulness isn't the natural order of things. If you were confident in your logical argument, I would think you wouldn't need to create artificial barriers to tip the scale and make UK worse off.
It's a nice thought. But that is not the purpose of democracy.
I don't know whether "confirming" was the intent. But certainly a second referendum would NOT be confirmatory. The result would cause a different set of people to vote in the redo. Many likely did not vote because they thought Remain would win, and would vote in a redo now that they saw Leave win. Some didn't know how they felt but with Leave winning are now scared, and would vote in a redo. These are not confirmations. These are new and different results.
I didn't say welfare causes all unemployment, but you knew that
Nice try. I wasn't disputing anything the article said. I was intentionally adding a point not covered in the article but likely a contributing factor.
You're reading a lot of words that are not in my comment
Well, yes, exactly. Or more precisely it raises the bar on what is considered reasonable compensation for a given unit of work.
You seem to have taken a left turn somewhere. I didn't make any generalization of any country, nor did I suggest anyone likes or dislikes their welfare state. I simply pointed out a likely unintended admission that unemployed people are able to hold higher standards for employment, because the welfare state permits them to live comfortably enough to turn down work. Your vulgar reaction to a pretty minor logical point says quite a bit about you.
> Hire the person that profits them the most
In what fantasy would should businesses make hiring decisions using any other metric?
Sounds like you are acknowledging that the welfare state causes unemployment.
> You need a new tag line in this hottest year ever.
It's amazing to watch the complete scientific ignorance from the group that pats themselves on the back for being on the side of science.
I oppose govt licensure of Uber drivers. Uber has background checks.