every single turkey necked repub justification for voting against the paycheck fairness act is:

1) employers will offer less jobs to women
2) employers will offer less performance based bonuses b/c they will be scared of litigation
3) it will hurt the markets natural "supply and demand"
4) the census data is wrong

E) it could negatively impact a company's bottom line and thus executive compensation

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Sebelius is resigning.

liked this comment at one place that ran an article on her resignation:

At least she won't have to worry about getting health insurance

NSA Said to Exploit Heartbleed Bug for Intelligence for Years - I'm on the less troubled by NSA data collection side of things generally, but this seems pretty fucked up. This is them actively exploiting a vulnerability in the system that others also could've exploited, rather than taking steps to fix it. That seems counter to their mission of protecting the United States and its people.

yeah, that's #$!&@ up. didn't read it though, i'll trust the bsg dialog

NSA/CSS ‏@NSA_PAO
Statement: NSA was not aware of the recently identified Heartbleed vulnerability until it was made public.

NSA denying

extremely good, honest writing

A BOWL OF WHAT?!

jerseyhoya wrote:NSA/CSS ‏@NSA_PAO
Statement: NSA was not aware of the recently identified Heartbleed vulnerability until it was made public.

NSA denying

sun rises

Youseff wrote:every single turkey necked repub justification for voting against the paycheck fairness act is:

1) employers will offer less jobs to women
2) employers will offer less performance based bonuses b/c they will be scared of litigation
3) it will hurt the markets natural "supply and demand"
4) the census data is wrong

The gender pay gap due to discrimination ranges from 0 to 7%. This legislation is not likely to change that, but only to increase the administrative burden of employers.

I do support the aspect of the law that mentions that employees cannot be retaliated against for discussing compensation. But that doesn't really need to be in this piece of legislation, and based on youseff's comments, he doesn't think Republicans oppose the law for that clause.

Youseff, do you know what the Republicans actually said about their votes?

Russia's PM said that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war.

No, just on the brink of war with you. Even if we can say Crimea was mostly Russian (at best it's 60/40?), the regions they are going into now are decidedly NOT filled with russian people. There are some, but there are Russian nationals in the US, in Canada, in the UK, etc. There is no civil war, just encroachment and a violation of international law.

Youseff wrote:

extremely good, honest writing

Todd Starnes wrote:“In the book, I sort of likened myself to a modern-day Paul Revere,” Starnes said. “I don’t have a horse or a lantern, but I have a microphone and a laptop, and I can type at the top of my voice, shouting, ‘The secularists are coming! The secularists are coming!’ and they really do want to take away our right to worship God.”

He's right you, know: I meet with a secret society of secularists every week and our goal is to tear down every Church and enforce compliance with atheism.

This is a fish-in-a-barrel thing I know, but great yumpin yimminy.

I'm not a sod-buster or a rancher, but it seems like ranchers paying usage fees would be kind of annoyed about Bundy, and about fancy-pants east coast media dandies supporting his refusal to pay said fees himself

Pretty sure the Duck Dynasty and Miley Cyrus world's overlap as much as they stand apart.

While I hesitate to drag us back one week to a topic already discussed, this article does a good job articulating some of the points that I had been unable to express regarding the Mozilla CEO departure.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ts/360446/

Werthless wrote:While I hesitate to drag us back one week to a topic already discussed, this article does a good job articulating some of the points that I had been unable to express regarding the Mozilla CEO departure.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ts/360446/

you probably hesitated wisely, inasmuch as its core seems to be this:

Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it's also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.

That's why it's wrong to stigmatize all opponents of gay marriage as bigots....

1) that's 2 beliefs
2) they aren't exactly in harmony (belief in #1, which I don't understand, institutions aren't "procreative", but whatever, doesn't automatically imply an assertion of #2, which isn't something anyone would argue anyway?)

naturally I didn't read all of the article, so may have missed something

you're just pretending to misread it

(disclaimer: this post does not imply endorsement of article)

Houshphandzadeh wrote:you're just pretending to misread it

(disclaimer: this post does not imply endorsement of article)

oh