I am not a hypocrite telling people to behave one way while I act another. When I am, you can ask "what have YOU done?" and criticize me accordingly. Do try and focus on the topic instead of running around the playground.
At least try to stay on topic when repeating talking points, because what you said makes no sense. The Obama administration recommended banning immigration from the 7 countries Trump just did, but President Obama ignored the recommendation. President Obama was quite frankly out of touch with reality, claiming that there were no terrorist attacks during his administration and that importing tens of thousands of refugees had no risk. The first has to ignore the Boston Marathon, Ft. Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, and you can search and find many more. The second ignores what has happened in Germany, Switzerland, France, the UK, and every other country who has mass imported people from the Middle East without allowing, or even caring, that they adopt the cultures of their country.
That is not a "Muslim" thing, it's a thing where people lack respect for the country they live in and even actively work to subvert the Government in the same Country. We have a good number of Mexican immigrants in the US who want California and Texas to be parts of Mexico and they don't respect or care about the US.
The people who are limiting their scope are the people who cherry pick talking points like "we are immigrants" without actually checking on whether or not that's true. For example: Prior to having State Welfare we were open to all immigration, but if you failed you went back to your home country. Plenty of people did just that. After Welfare systems were established the rules changed a bit, and should have changed more. Welfare is supposed to go to current citizens, and not help people who have not contributed to the system. You want to give all your money and property away, that's on you. State Welfare requires the Government to take money from _everyone_, so it's not charity.
If you have interest in actually improving your state of mind, I'd recommend Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I won't hold my breath though, because chanting what someone tells you to is much easier than learning..
Your generalization lacks legal merit. Asking "why did Joe leave the company?" or "was Joe a good worker?" may result in legal action if not presented correctly. As a basic rule you can ask about dates of employment and salary. Anything else needs to be carefully vetted for the State you are in lest you end up on the other end of a lawsuit.
One of the only questions a new employer can ask an old employer is how much you got paid. I believe it is still required as a confirmation, such as "did Joe make 50K/yr salary?" and can't be an open question.
A lie during your hiring process may result in immediate termination.
As said above, it's best to know what you are worth and what to ask for. You can always negotiate down, but not the other direction. Always best to start a bit higher so you have some room. Too high, and you will not get a call back though..
The point was that Must was a hypocrite, which you admit is correct. Then you claim his personal contribution is still small so should not count and that he does not need to try to set an example. Anyone, and yes that is ANYONE, can now claim the same right?. Meaning, who gives a shit about Climate and Pollution.
If not: Unfortunately the Aristotelian "I'm smarter than you so you owe me stuff" mentality never leads to progress. The Serfs may tolerate the Holier than Though Nobles but really do not hold their opinions with any regard and ignore those Noble's calls for rally.
My point was mainly that Trump has not stopped alternative energy production and has stated that he is encouraging all sectors to compete and grow. His platform was PRO Nuclear as well as Pro Coal. His inauguration speech said the same thing as his platform, if people are bothered enough to listen.
My secondary point was that "green" alternative energy sources like Wind and Solar are really not as "green" as someone initially observes or has described to them. All forms of power have impact on the environment, and when you start to look at the total cost of running and maintaining the system they are closer than people are being taught to think.
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.
It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.
As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.
Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.
Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.
Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.
Bills like this are actually pretty common. The James Taggart's and Orren Boyle's of the world have to feel important and look busy somehow. Fortunately enough, these types of bills are not often passed and if they do it's usually lacking support from the public. Meaning they don't tend to last long.
There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees, women are free to make their own degree choices and do so. Just like men. Fact: Assessment tests for promising areas of study are not gender specific. Countless men are given the same results as women for the same reasons and choose their degree choices by those tests. Numerous men do not pursue STEM degrees for the same reasons as women.
So unless you wish to claim that somehow a number 2 pencil and piece of paper can be bigoted, stop repeating propaganda which is easily dismissed as irrational nonsense. If you are not smart enough to figure out that you are repeating propaganda, or the irrationality of paper and pencil being biased, consider drinking heavy amounts of Thorazine.
False statement. It was not legal when she implemented it, and it was taken down and confiscated exactly because it was illegal. Her particular uses of it were similarly illegal. If you have doubts go work for the Government and send to your Gmail account some classified documents. The same can be said for her top aide Huma, who may soon be facing charges for sending copies of those emails to her personal Yahoo account. "It is easier to print" is not an excuse for breaking the law!
The FBI Director stated both of those facts (actions were criminal and illegal) but recommended not prosecuting. His reason for doing this was a claim that there was no proof of intent. Intent is not a defined statute of the Laws. Former Prosecutor and current Congressman Trey Gowdy refutes that position very well and you can read his Congressional statements (or listen to them on CSPAN tape or Youtube clips). Hillary may still face prosecution for both perjury and violation of federal law for the use of the email server. She has yet to be pardoned and has not been cleared of wrong doing. She has simply avoided facing criminal charges.
My comments on "Grants" are fact based, but perhaps a tiny bit of hyperbole. Tuition grants almost exclusively go to the bottom 99%. I could not find a case of a tuition grant going to someone someone wealthy. I mentioned the "tiny bit of hyperbole" here specifically because exceptions are quite possible. Me not being able to find a grant going to a wealthy kid indicates that they are rare, but not necessarily impossible.
My first post referenced Scholarships separately because those cover everything from athletics to academically gifted. The wealthy can, and do, receive scholarships. Their chances of obtaining a scholarship is reduced because most scholarship programs look at a persons means to pay their own way when considering applicants.
The only way you could end up at the 1/3rd number is by looking at something other than "Grants", which is probably why you failed to provide a source for your argument.
The top 1% own more mansions than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% own more Ferrari cars than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% go to the most expensive schools. Did you also know that the bottom 99% get more grants for education than the top 1% by 100%? How about the amount of "free" tuition from scholarships going to mostly the lower 90%? More assistance programs exist for the bottom 30% than the top 70%.
There is no equality of opportunity at any level when discussing higher education. I don't want rich people to have "free" college any more than I want lower income people strapped with decades of debt for useless degrees. There is plenty of rational dialogue on making sure there is no discrimination and that College is actually useful and not just brainwashing. Those issues are not being discussed. Discrimination is simply assumed all the time regardless of any facts by way too many people.
I honestly don't remember a promise of no commercials from Cable, only certain channels one could receive from cable. Some of the available channels, like early HBO did say "commercial free" because you paid (and most likely still do) for the subscription. Subscription based TV is why people go to Netflix and watch Netflix owned shows. Just like I pay for CRTV and watch their shows. The "Free" Youtube content can have commercials, but if you subscribe you don't get them either.
Networks who continue to use commercials for funding are on the decline, but this is not new or shocking.
A BLOG by a Politically motivated Person != FACTS Collected for analysis by the Department of Labor. It never ceases to amaze me how you left wing nut jobs fail to use facts in any argument and continually prop up opinions biased to your causes as "evidence." In fact you continually deny facts exist and have claimed facts are biased to gender and race.
FACT: MORE WOMEN THAN MEN ARE EARNING DEGREES! Are going to now claim "not enough STEM" indicating that you want to revoke a woman's choice in degree fields and force her into a STEM job instead of the degree of her choosing?
Which says absolutely nothing to debunk the claims which were provided by the Democratic Caucus in Iowa. If you have not yet figured out that Snopes has become a propaganda site, time to wake up.
The response is correct: "The complaint is politically motivated, based on false allegations, and wholly without merit."
Merit is the biggest modifier in people's pay, and has been for decades. Equal opportunity has been the law several decades now. More women graduate college than men, and have been superior in terms of years of education for quite some time now. The Gender pay gap has been debunked so often that I honestly question the sanity of people who continue to argue that it exists. US Department of Labor data shows that women make more than men with the same qualifications and work habits, not less.
Simple questions answer the issue easily. If women work for less than men, why does any company run by a man hire a man? I'm really tired of this leftist religion being crammed down everyone's throats. Yes, it has become a religion.
Anyone who watched the process KNEW full well that there was massive collusion by the DNC and Media to INSTALL Hillary as the candidate. In the first election, she won 6 straight coin tosses to take Iowa. That was day 1. So did Russia fix all of the coin tosses, card flips, and dice rolls of which Hillary won 100% of the "tie breakers"?
Good grief, I honestly wonder how much medication some of the people spreading these conspiracies are missing. I personally really enjoy researching conspiracies, which has led to me personally debunking most of them. What people are claiming over this last election cycle fails the most basic of scrutiny. Russia did not make Hillary attack women who accused William J of rape. The Russians did not make Hillary setup an illegal server. The Russians did not make her spread the lie that a crappy Youtube video caused 4 Americans to die. The Russians did not make her give 2-4 Hundred thousand dollar speeches where she said foolish things about erasing borders. The Russians did not make Hillary praise Sanger and Byrd. Those are things off the top of my head which have been public information for a very long time, all reported by sources OTHER THAN RT.
The Democrats ran a worse candidate than the Republicans. That is why Hillary lost! Not some baseless allegations. Good grief, think about the allegation. "Trump hates Obama so much that he paid hookers to piss on the bed that the Obama's slept in."
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a hypocrite telling people to behave one way while I act another. When I am, you can ask "what have YOU done?" and criticize me accordingly. Do try and focus on the topic instead of running around the playground.
At least try to stay on topic when repeating talking points, because what you said makes no sense. The Obama administration recommended banning immigration from the 7 countries Trump just did, but President Obama ignored the recommendation. President Obama was quite frankly out of touch with reality, claiming that there were no terrorist attacks during his administration and that importing tens of thousands of refugees had no risk. The first has to ignore the Boston Marathon, Ft. Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, and you can search and find many more. The second ignores what has happened in Germany, Switzerland, France, the UK, and every other country who has mass imported people from the Middle East without allowing, or even caring, that they adopt the cultures of their country.
That is not a "Muslim" thing, it's a thing where people lack respect for the country they live in and even actively work to subvert the Government in the same Country. We have a good number of Mexican immigrants in the US who want California and Texas to be parts of Mexico and they don't respect or care about the US.
The people who are limiting their scope are the people who cherry pick talking points like "we are immigrants" without actually checking on whether or not that's true. For example: Prior to having State Welfare we were open to all immigration, but if you failed you went back to your home country. Plenty of people did just that. After Welfare systems were established the rules changed a bit, and should have changed more. Welfare is supposed to go to current citizens, and not help people who have not contributed to the system. You want to give all your money and property away, that's on you. State Welfare requires the Government to take money from _everyone_, so it's not charity.
If you have interest in actually improving your state of mind, I'd recommend Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I won't hold my breath though, because chanting what someone tells you to is much easier than learning..
Your generalization lacks legal merit. Asking "why did Joe leave the company?" or "was Joe a good worker?" may result in legal action if not presented correctly. As a basic rule you can ask about dates of employment and salary. Anything else needs to be carefully vetted for the State you are in lest you end up on the other end of a lawsuit.
One of the only questions a new employer can ask an old employer is how much you got paid. I believe it is still required as a confirmation, such as "did Joe make 50K/yr salary?" and can't be an open question.
A lie during your hiring process may result in immediate termination.
As said above, it's best to know what you are worth and what to ask for. You can always negotiate down, but not the other direction. Always best to start a bit higher so you have some room. Too high, and you will not get a call back though..
bah.. s/Must/Musk/
The point was that Must was a hypocrite, which you admit is correct. Then you claim his personal contribution is still small so should not count and that he does not need to try to set an example. Anyone, and yes that is ANYONE, can now claim the same right?. Meaning, who gives a shit about Climate and Pollution.
If not: Unfortunately the Aristotelian "I'm smarter than you so you owe me stuff" mentality never leads to progress. The Serfs may tolerate the Holier than Though Nobles but really do not hold their opinions with any regard and ignore those Noble's calls for rally.
Who's opinion do you think they were providing, yours? Sheesh
My point was mainly that Trump has not stopped alternative energy production and has stated that he is encouraging all sectors to compete and grow. His platform was PRO Nuclear as well as Pro Coal. His inauguration speech said the same thing as his platform, if people are bothered enough to listen.
My secondary point was that "green" alternative energy sources like Wind and Solar are really not as "green" as someone initially observes or has described to them. All forms of power have impact on the environment, and when you start to look at the total cost of running and maintaining the system they are closer than people are being taught to think.
Good to see censors quickly down modding the post. Rational discourse is not allowed.
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.
It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.
As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.
Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.
Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.
Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.
Bills like this are actually pretty common. The James Taggart's and Orren Boyle's of the world have to feel important and look busy somehow. Fortunately enough, these types of bills are not often passed and if they do it's usually lacking support from the public. Meaning they don't tend to last long.
And how much would that be in Space Bucks?
You refusing to acknowledge facts and continue to argue against facts makes you a LIAR.
There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees, women are free to make their own degree choices and do so. Just like men. Fact: Assessment tests for promising areas of study are not gender specific. Countless men are given the same results as women for the same reasons and choose their degree choices by those tests. Numerous men do not pursue STEM degrees for the same reasons as women.
So unless you wish to claim that somehow a number 2 pencil and piece of paper can be bigoted, stop repeating propaganda which is easily dismissed as irrational nonsense. If you are not smart enough to figure out that you are repeating propaganda, or the irrationality of paper and pencil being biased, consider drinking heavy amounts of Thorazine.
Clinton's email server was perfectly legal.
False statement. It was not legal when she implemented it, and it was taken down and confiscated exactly because it was illegal. Her particular uses of it were similarly illegal. If you have doubts go work for the Government and send to your Gmail account some classified documents. The same can be said for her top aide Huma, who may soon be facing charges for sending copies of those emails to her personal Yahoo account. "It is easier to print" is not an excuse for breaking the law!
The FBI Director stated both of those facts (actions were criminal and illegal) but recommended not prosecuting. His reason for doing this was a claim that there was no proof of intent. Intent is not a defined statute of the Laws. Former Prosecutor and current Congressman Trey Gowdy refutes that position very well and you can read his Congressional statements (or listen to them on CSPAN tape or Youtube clips). Hillary may still face prosecution for both perjury and violation of federal law for the use of the email server. She has yet to be pardoned and has not been cleared of wrong doing. She has simply avoided facing criminal charges.
Facts, you should learn to use them.
My comments on "Grants" are fact based, but perhaps a tiny bit of hyperbole. Tuition grants almost exclusively go to the bottom 99%. I could not find a case of a tuition grant going to someone someone wealthy. I mentioned the "tiny bit of hyperbole" here specifically because exceptions are quite possible. Me not being able to find a grant going to a wealthy kid indicates that they are rare, but not necessarily impossible.
My first post referenced Scholarships separately because those cover everything from athletics to academically gifted. The wealthy can, and do, receive scholarships. Their chances of obtaining a scholarship is reduced because most scholarship programs look at a persons means to pay their own way when considering applicants.
The only way you could end up at the 1/3rd number is by looking at something other than "Grants", which is probably why you failed to provide a source for your argument.
The top 1% own more mansions than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% own more Ferrari cars than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% go to the most expensive schools. Did you also know that the bottom 99% get more grants for education than the top 1% by 100%? How about the amount of "free" tuition from scholarships going to mostly the lower 90%? More assistance programs exist for the bottom 30% than the top 70%.
There is no equality of opportunity at any level when discussing higher education. I don't want rich people to have "free" college any more than I want lower income people strapped with decades of debt for useless degrees. There is plenty of rational dialogue on making sure there is no discrimination and that College is actually useful and not just brainwashing. Those issues are not being discussed. Discrimination is simply assumed all the time regardless of any facts by way too many people.
I honestly don't remember a promise of no commercials from Cable, only certain channels one could receive from cable. Some of the available channels, like early HBO did say "commercial free" because you paid (and most likely still do) for the subscription. Subscription based TV is why people go to Netflix and watch Netflix owned shows. Just like I pay for CRTV and watch their shows. The "Free" Youtube content can have commercials, but if you subscribe you don't get them either.
Networks who continue to use commercials for funding are on the decline, but this is not new or shocking.
A BLOG by a Politically motivated Person != FACTS Collected for analysis by the Department of Labor. It never ceases to amaze me how you left wing nut jobs fail to use facts in any argument and continually prop up opinions biased to your causes as "evidence." In fact you continually deny facts exist and have claimed facts are biased to gender and race.
FACT: MORE WOMEN THAN MEN ARE EARNING DEGREES! Are going to now claim "not enough STEM" indicating that you want to revoke a woman's choice in degree fields and force her into a STEM job instead of the degree of her choosing?
Which says absolutely nothing to debunk the claims which were provided by the Democratic Caucus in Iowa. If you have not yet figured out that Snopes has become a propaganda site, time to wake up.
The response is correct: "The complaint is politically motivated, based on false allegations, and wholly without merit."
Merit is the biggest modifier in people's pay, and has been for decades. Equal opportunity has been the law several decades now. More women graduate college than men, and have been superior in terms of years of education for quite some time now. The Gender pay gap has been debunked so often that I honestly question the sanity of people who continue to argue that it exists. US Department of Labor data shows that women make more than men with the same qualifications and work habits, not less.
Simple questions answer the issue easily. If women work for less than men, why does any company run by a man hire a man? I'm really tired of this leftist religion being crammed down everyone's throats. Yes, it has become a religion.
Anyone who watched the process KNEW full well that there was massive collusion by the DNC and Media to INSTALL Hillary as the candidate. In the first election, she won 6 straight coin tosses to take Iowa. That was day 1. So did Russia fix all of the coin tosses, card flips, and dice rolls of which Hillary won 100% of the "tie breakers"?
Good grief, I honestly wonder how much medication some of the people spreading these conspiracies are missing. I personally really enjoy researching conspiracies, which has led to me personally debunking most of them. What people are claiming over this last election cycle fails the most basic of scrutiny. Russia did not make Hillary attack women who accused William J of rape. The Russians did not make Hillary setup an illegal server. The Russians did not make her spread the lie that a crappy Youtube video caused 4 Americans to die. The Russians did not make her give 2-4 Hundred thousand dollar speeches where she said foolish things about erasing borders. The Russians did not make Hillary praise Sanger and Byrd. Those are things off the top of my head which have been public information for a very long time, all reported by sources OTHER THAN RT.
The Democrats ran a worse candidate than the Republicans. That is why Hillary lost! Not some baseless allegations. Good grief, think about the allegation. "Trump hates Obama so much that he paid hookers to piss on the bed that the Obama's slept in."
"I have people skills. What the hell is wrong with you people!"
Marketing counts the first 100% as equal. Mathematically you are correct, but that is not how marketing works. Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
And what about Betamax you insensitive clod?