IntenseDebate - HiredMind

11 years ago @ Frontpage Magazine - Rehabilitating the 'Di... · 0 replies · +3 points

1. Men could be legally denied employment solely on the basis of their sex too. Always could be, still can be. Women are the sole gender to enjoy protection from that under the law.

2. Men were LEGALLY REQUIRED to support their wives. When a man can be jailed for failing to support his spouse (and a woman CAN'T), why the hell shouldn't he have a better chance at being employed?

3. Look at the evidence: men work - on average - more hours per day, per week, and per lifetime than women. But if you control for hours worked, experience, education, and compare the same jobs, women actually make just as much if not slightly more than men.

4. This business about about women making x% of what men make, is just a red herring. It doesn't control for any of the above. It simply adds the total income for both sexes and divides by the number of people in each group. Men and women CHOOSE different jobs. Don't believe me? 92% of workplace deaths are men and only 8% women - how does that happen unless they choose different jobs?

Where are the women sewer workers? Sanitation workers? I'm sure they exist but they are few and far between. Men end up doing all the dirty and dangerous work in society while the women lead relatively comfortable lives, and never stop bitching about it.

12 years ago @ Big Government - In Memoriam: Andrew Br... · 0 replies · +1 points

Bigotry: alive and well on the left. Once Democrats were slave-masters, now they are voting-bloc masters.

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - Limbaugh Apologizes to... · 0 replies · +17 points

And you aren't even smart enough to know that he wasn't talking about actual birth control - he was talking about payment for birth control, and government forcing a religious institution to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs.

It would be like a Republican president telling the (no-doubt racist, Black Liberation) church to which you belong that it must employ "white devils" in numbers proportional to their representation in the general population.

Damn bigot.

12 years ago @ Big Government - Taxpayer-Supported Pla... · 0 replies · +1 points

"If you scan [a QR code], people can tell where you are."

*Facepalm*

Ben, that's not how QR codes work. Just as a bar code is simply a numeric code, a QR code is simply a code consisting of numbers and letters. When the app on your phone scans a QR code, it has to query a service on the net to know anything about that number. In order for the service to know where you are, the app on your phone would have to be designed to read your GPS location and send it to the service. To my knowledge none of the code scanner apps for phones do this - you would have to download a special app for it.

I agree with you that asking for your location when you use a condom is creepy and wierd. But your phone is not, repeat, NOT automatically going to send your location when you scan it.

I work in the tech industry, an industry infested with nutcase liberals who think that all conservatives handle snakes as part of religious services and believe that the numbers 666 are embedded in bar codes. Alas, the idea that QR codes can let people know where you are is just another thing that I will have to defend conservatives against in the coming days. It makes us look like ignorant tools when we accept this kind of thing without actually learning about the tech behind it.

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - Alan Dershowitz Declar... · 0 replies · +6 points

"...should have read, 'What sayeth the White House?'"

Hmmm. Who's right here? You, some anonymous lefty loon on the internet, or Merriam-Webster?

P.s. Thanks for agreeing with everything in Dana's post. By only attacking grammar/spelling, you're agreeing to everything else.

12 years ago @ Big Government - Big Oil Wants to Kill ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Is it just me, or does the headline and the first paragraph of this article make an accusation that is never proven in the rest of the article? In fact, no evidence at all is given for the charge that "it’s Big Oil money that’s out to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline".

You've certainly done a good analysis and laid out why Keystone might be bad for some companies, but as for actually making a connection between those facts and the opening accusation Big Oil (tm) is actively trying to kill the project, nothing.

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - WaPo's Erik W... · 0 replies · +1 points

Look at this choice quote from Eric Wemple's original rant:
"The unfunny thing about these defenses is that, in light of gays’ experience in this country, ..."

Uh, how's that Erik? Better and almost any other country? How were gays treated in the Soviet Union? Until recently, locked up. China? Same. North Korea? Starving, and certainly in the closet for fear of being murdered at any moment. Iraq? Hanged. Iran? In the words of AquaVelvaJad, "There are no gays in my country."

The only place on Earth that even comes close to the way gays are tolerated in America is Europe - and you still hear about the occasional harassment by a private party there.

These liberals have both feet firmly planted in the land of make-believe.

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - Admission: 'Journalist... · 0 replies · +7 points

He could have just left it at "Journalists are liberals". Saying that they are not interested in facts and truth is just redundant.

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - New York Times ... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's in the 2nd sentence of the article:
"This is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, because the New York Times, like a lot of liberals, compares Romney’s income from capital gains (which were already taxed as income) to Obama’s salary as president (which is taxed as salary), but let’s go with it anyways."

I don't have a problem with CG taxes being 15%, in fact, I think they should be lower. (I'm a radical libertarian - ideally our governments should be funded voluntarily, no forced taxation).

12 years ago @ Big Journalism - New York Times ... · 2 replies · +1 points

Um, because it's not true. If someone says something that is demonsterably untrue, it makes them look dumb or dishonest. Saying that capital gains is double taxation is demonsterably untrue.

Again, you only pay taxes on the gains, not the (previously taxed) principal.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with HiredMind

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

HiredMind