I would not be at all surprised to learn that companies that went to unlimited FTO saw their employees take less time off.

#2 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That has been recognized for quite a while now, that unlimited time off results in less vacation taken. Heard talk of companies moving to unlimited time off, with a MINIMUM amount of vacation that you have to take.

Uh huh. Or maybe they fostered a country where free speech is of paramount importance. And free speech does have its negative side too, as does systems of government that are anti-free speech. Unfortunately, it seems Liberals have to actually change America to be anti-free speech in order to find out what those negatives are. They love to spout all the good things about other countries but can't be bothered to look at the negative repercussions of the path they have put America on.
I mean, Dems want to be free to encourage and support looting, rioting and killing. But they don't want Cons to be free to do it. Picking and choosing the free speech you want others to follow only makes you a Dictator. Just saying.

#2 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

See... this is the problem with conservatives... they don't actually understand the constitution at all. What about anything that is said here do YOU thinks violates the constitutionally protected right to free speech? Because, as far as I can tell, there is nothing here that is asking the GOVERNMENT to suppress this speech.

You are correct... the Republican Party has EVERY RIGHT to promote racism. They can even change their name to be the "Racism Party" if they want to. But, if they do not support those views (this is completely hypothetical, because it really looks like the Republican Party does support those views) then they have every right to speak out and condemn them. As well as the right to associate, or in this case not associate, with people who (again, hypothetically) do not conform to the values of their organization.

I did not see you get all whiny and judgmental when the Republican Party decided to kick out Liz Cheney for HER speech and association, but when SHE says that they should do that to racists, suddenly it is a big deal to you.

So, to recap... this does not violate ANYONE's right to free speech. And, even if you wanted to make an argument it did, it is very clear that you only care about preserving the "free speech" of racists and Trumpers. That when other people's free speech is violated, you stay quiet.

wear a condom for 30 seconds or less.

#61 | POSTED BY LEGALLYDORKY

Oh. I'm sorry. You poor little incel.

-Margaret Sanger, famous eugenist and racist

#57 | POSTED BY EBERLY

c. very few people would argue it shouldnt be illegal.

#41 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

I would. I believe the need to outlaw abortion is similar to the need to strengthen voting laws. It is creating an unnecessary law for a problem that doesn't exist. I believe that regardless of the legality, people don't want to have abortions late in pregnancy. This is held up by the numbers quoted. If the current point of "illegality" (24 weeks) were affecting behavior you would expect to see a jump in abortions right before this cutoff (when people would get "elective" abortions to beat the deadline). But, instead, the data seems to indicate that that cutoff has no effect.

So, I believe that pretty much all abortions at that stage of pregnancy are, and would be, done for a "good reason". So there is no point for conservatives to put useless laws on the books that accomplish nothing except for costing people money and getting in the way of people trying to do the right thing.

The rwing hyperbole of Gore's tubular internet is sometimes a fun way to visualize networks versus how they're actually set up.

#10 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

It is not Gore's "tubular internet". It was a right-wing idiot who used that metaphor, to argue against the necessity of net neutrality.

It can be a fun way to visualize the internet. But when you are using that "fun visualization" as the basis of deciding legislation that has integral effects on how the internet ACTUALLY works, it becomes a little less light-hearted and fun, instead crossing more into the depressingly ignorant and dangerous. Because it becomes not about helping people understand the world around them, but convincing simple-minded idiots to think as you want them to think (which is pretty much the basis of the conservative movement) so that a politician can further their special interests.

Another "cool historical nugget" for you.

#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

It is pointless. Facts don't matter to those people. And I guarantee they are too ignorant to know who Vince Cerf is. And even if they did, they wouldn't believe that his opinion matters. They believe that God created the internet, or maybe Tucker Carlson. Definitely not normal human beings.
And definitely not anyone who has ever had a liberal thought.
Attributing its design and implementation to such a person will just trigger them, and make them lash out in anger against you for your perceived blasphemy.

Problem is she and the insurrection leaders won't be held accountable, this hearing is just further evidence of that fact.
485 days and counting

#2 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

My point is the fact she has not been charged with a crime is evidence of that fact. She needs to be put in front of a jury of her peers to be held accountable. Taking away the opportunity for her to be held accountable to the public at large at the ballot box (or for the public at large to choose not to hold her accountable) to me seems like the opposite of what you are saying should be done.

Good. I don't like her. I definitely don't like her politics. And honestly would have been fine with charging her with a crime and putting her in jail for the role she played (if her actions met the threshold to be charged). But I don't like the idea of people being disqualified from ballots over accusations of being "disloyal" or "unpatriotic".

Ultimately, if someone tries to rebel against this country and the voters choose to put them back in office, then either the country deserved the rebellion, or the country has bigger problems. Which, in this case I think we have bigger problems, but setting a precedent like this is not the way to fix them.

Musk had no problem lining up for his hand out for the Tesla plant in Buffalo NY.

#32 | POSTED BY NIXON

See my #9.

Just like Democrats have no problem spending unlimited campaign cash.

Just like Warren Buffett has no problem paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.

No, all i asked you (nobody else) was why we should believe his claims that he opposes EV subsidies given his track record of lies. You have yet to respond to such a simple question, despite the desperate novels you've dedicated to the thread.

#27 | POSTED BY JOE

Because you have no evidence, whatsoever, to the contrary. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. YOUR argument here is that because you believe he has told a lie in the past that you are going to assume that he is lying here. Even though there is ZERO outside evidence indicating that he has done ANYTHING to support or lobby for subsidies.

If you have ANY indications that he has acted in a way that is NOT consistent with his public statements, PLEASE let the class know. But random disparagements of his character, while not necessarily unfair, are not in themselves evidence of him lying. It is just one big ad hominem.

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

#24 | POSTED BY JOE

What evidence do you have that we shouldn't believe his publicly stated positions?

You are implying that other people are justified in saying that he "likes free money" because you think Musk is a liar. But I have seen NO ONE present any evidence that Musk has actually done anything contrary to his stated position. Except by actually accepting the money, which was offered by the government.

So that is how I deconstructed your argument. Warren Buffett and the Democratic Party ALSO take advantage of laws that they have publicly stated they oppose, and yet on this thread only Musk is condemned for it. Though y'all claim you are not condemning him for it. Your only other argument is that he "likes free money", because he has publicly stated that he doesn't want it, and he is a liar? Is it one of those things where EVERYTHING HE SAYS must be false? Or do you have any other evidence that supports your view?

Keep in mind... the thing I was refuting originally was Lamp's assertion that "Subsidize the rich, privatize the profits" was what Musk was "going for".

I get it. You don't like Musk. But just because you don't like him personally does not give you the right to claim he is hypocritical about his publicly stated positions without any proof whatsoever.

@#6 ... Subsidize the rich, privatize the profits. ...
This is what Mr Musk seems to be going for.

#8 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The main argument of your comment seems to be, well it's legal, therefore it is OK.
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the comments were more about what the laws prescribe.
Do try harder to keep up. The argument in your comment is weak (I'm being kind).

#11 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

#17 how does one "prescribe" a law?
And I don't think anyone is debating lawfulness.
Just dignity and integrity.

#20 | POSTED BY JPW

--- if I know.

Apparently you are having trouble "keeping up" as well?

So... what is the "dignity" and "integrity" that you are debating? Because it seems to me that you are talking about the argument that I made that Lamp dismissed... whether it shows a lack of "integrity" for someone to take advantage of legal subsidies at the same time as they publicly oppose them. Just like the Democratic party accepts unlimited donations while saying that should not be allowed. Or while Warren Buffett paid only the taxes he owed (and at a lower rate than his secretary) at the same time as he was advocating for a "Millionaire's Tax".

Now I am sure you could talk about "dignity and integrity" towards other things Musk has done, but that seems irrelevant to this thread.

But, that hasn't stopped anyone else. Joe apparently thinks that because Musk is a "known liar and an obvious troll" that Lamp and other people on this thread are justified in assigning positions to him (and just childish name calling) without any evidence.

What we SHOULD be debating is lawfulness. And changing whether that is the case. If you want to get rid of subsidies, you should do so. If Musk were lobbying on behalf of keeping subsidies I would agree to these accusations of hypocrisy. But I have seen ZERO evidence that he has tried to influence government to provide him or his companies more subsidies.

Clearly, you're not equipped.

#18 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD

Says the one throwing the ad hominem instead of making any actual argument. And look, your only other post on this thread is an ad hominem. Are you a Trump supporter, because you seem to be just calling people names just like he does?

Adults are talking. When you have anything constructive to add, maybe you should actually try engaging with something intelligent.

But, I am still waiting for Lamp to respond. He seems to just be tagging along with the theme of name calling that you started this thread off with (is that what he meant when he said that "the comments were more about what the laws prescribe"?), but I do know that he can (or at least used to be able to) do better.

@#6 ... Subsidize the rich, privatize the profits. ...
This is what Mr Musk seems to be going for.

#8 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

What law is this prescribing? Because it seems to be a personal attack on him, countering his publicly stated position (that he is oppose to all subsidies).

I am just trying to keep up. Please explain.

but oh so reluctant to pay taxes on the profits garnered partially as a result of those generous subsidies.
#8 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

How much extra taxes do you pay to the government each year, over and above what you owe? Because I pay what I am legally required to and no more. I do not expect any differently from anyone else.

And yes... I am calling out your hypocrisy (logical fallacy). Because my guess is that you think that YOU should only have to pay what you legally owe, but think that Billionaires should be held to some different standard than you are? If that is what you are saying, then I disagree with you. I, personally, believe that if you want people to pay more then you should pass a law to require they do so. It seems kinda ridiculous to me that you expect these people to voluntarily donate extra money to the US government to compensate for your inability to actually get laws passed.

Btw... If he had lobbied for lower tax rates, especially lower tax rates for higher incomes, then I would agree with you. But I have seen no evidence that Musk has lobbied (spent money) at all in furtherance of those goals or anything similar.

Musk has has publicly said he opposes all subsidies (for EVs or fossil fuels). I have no problem with him taking advantage of subsidies that he is legally eligible for. Though I support him in trying to get rid of those subsidies.

So your logical fallacy today is a call to hypocrisy.

Are you consistent about it? Democrats use Super PACs, accept unlimited and anonymous donations. And accept money from corporations. Do you believe that because Democrats accept and use this money, that they should stop trying to pass laws that would limit or ban it (because it is "hypocritical")? Or do you only apply your naive and unreasonable standard to people you don't like?

I used to shop at Home Depot exclusively. Now I shop at Lowes instead. I have no intention of ever setting foot in a Hobby Lobby. I used to eat at Chick-fil-a all the time, but go to Popeyes instead. And go to Krogers exclusively over Publix.

I am not extreme about it, I would buy something from these businesses if I had to. And do not judge other people for patronizing these businesses. But, unlike what conservatives seem to think, these businesses are not entitled to my hard earned money. And it is my right to choose to support businesses that share my values, or at least not give my money to businesses whose values I find abhorrent.

Boeing prefers that the taxpayers overspend for the new AF Ones - were not used to dealing with a businessman, much to their chagrin.

#5 | POSTED BY MSGT

You must not be a businessman. A real businessman realizes that you are reliant on your customers and your vendors. That it is not just about getting the best possible "deal" but that you have to make sure that everyone makes money as well for it to be sustainable. Or else you will be looking for new customers and vendors next week/month/year etc. A real businessman adds value, doesn't have to rely on screwing everyone else out of the value that they add.

The same thing happens with employees. Conservative "businessmen" try to pay their employees as little as possible, treat them like adversaries instead of partners. Are focused on extracting as much value as possible from the employees, instead of ensuring that all parties are fairly compensated for the value they add. Which ends up with the good employees leaving to actually well run companies, and all that is left is the crappy employees. What you end up with is a zero sum game, with these conservative businesses full of employees who provide very limited value, and the business focused on extracting as much value as possible from that limited pool instead of actually adding value by figuring out how to make that pool bigger.

That is why the big successful companies, the ones that are actually growing and innovating, are considered "liberal" ones. While the conservative ones rely on their bought and paid for Republican Representatives to continue to feed them corporate welfare to stay alive.

#28...

Not sure how to fit that in with the current situation (whether it affects the judgement of whether it was the right thing for the officers to do). Could be a sign of police harassment? But not enough facts to feel confident in any conclusions one way or the other.

But it is very relevant background. Adds another layer of depth to the situation. Thanks for finding it.

I can't say this is the wrong thing.

If my kid had broken the law like this I would be happy for them to get this experience (I realize I am making assumptions about what the actual experience for the kid was).

But, my kids are white. I am not worried that they would get shot, or beat up, or end up in jail with charges, in the process. Which is the main issue. I think this is good if the parents approve. Bad if it makes the parents terrified, feel like they are not in control or that it could spiral out of control.

I think due to the fact that the kid was not put in handcuffs, was not charged, and was taken home to talk to the parents makes me think that the officers here were trying to do the right thing. That their intentions were probably correct. Whether it actually WAS a right thing to do is another question.

And, all these people claiming that this cannot be the right thing to do because police departments fall short in their handling of other crimes... you are very obviously engaging in a logical fallacy. You are arguing that the police SHOULD NOT try to do the right thing here because they have not been able to do the right thing EVERYWHERE ELSE. It is called a "call to hypocrisy" (eg... "Al Gore obviously does not actually care about global warming because he flies in a private jet, or flies anywhere to talk about global warming") and it is BS when other people do it and it is BS when you do it.

I am interested in any arguments that this was not OK because the kid was black (but it would have been ok to do to a white kid), or any factual assertion that the kid was actually treated poorly or unfairly.

It still takes someone to pull the trigger.

#25 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

Yeah, but the gun is what is responsible for the killing, not the person. Conservatives established this with "Fast and Furious" (because it was Obama's fault that he let a gun kill a border patrol agent, the person that pulled the trigger did not matter at all to conservatives).

"Oh... this is old news. Most conservatives are bisexuals."
Isn't that kind of like saying most progressives are -----?
And even if it's true, who cares?

#135 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I don't care if you are gay, straight, or anywhere in between. I do care about people imposing their narrow-minded views on others and trying to shame them.

You, and people like you, use the fact that you think being gay is a "choice" to bully, discriminate, and degrade other humans around you who happen to be different than you. It is disgusting behavior. That is what I care about.

It is in that case that I am going to point out your hypocrisy, to point out that your attacks on other people are generally rooted in your own self-hatred and hypocrisy.

See... I am straight. Very much so. I surround myself with people who accept me for who I am, and would be accepting of whatever orientation or urges I ended up having. And I would have plenty of opportunities to indulge those urges if I did have them. But I am around people that run the spectrum of orientations quite regularly, so it really pisses me off when narrow minded little ------ try to make them feel bad about living authentically. Being straight is NOT a choice for me. It is just how I am. And I don't judge other people for how they are, until "how they are" makes them feel like it is necessary to make other people who I know and care about feel bad about themselves.

I guess I'm stupid.
I have a penis, but I can choose to be a human with a vagina. Even though I have a Penis, can never have a vagina, and can never ever alter my chromosomes.
You can choose to dress like the opposite sex, you can act in a manner consistent with that of the opposite sex, but you'll never ever actually be the opposite sex. So it's probably not a great idea to tell kids they could be the opposite sex. And if you are, let them know they can be anything they want. A cat. A dog. An alligator. Maybe even a car. The only limit being their own imagination.

#129 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Yes. You are stupid.

Only idiots (like you apparently) think that addressing gender changes biology.

I feel like I should try to explain it to you, because I do want people to understand these things if they are willing to actually listen. But it is pretty clear that you don't care about understanding other people's viewpoints. You just want to trade insults. If I am wrong about that, let me know, and I will be happy to explain in detail how your understanding of this subject is flawed.

"That's a good question for you to ask your mom, dad, parent, or guardian about. We will now return to the math lesson." K-3 Teacher

#127 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

So... you are saying that teachers should not be talking about these things at all.

But teachers are probably the biggest source of turning in child abuse (you know... ACTUAL grooming) because they interact with the kids and the kids ask them questions about things they come into contact with. But you are saying that instead of engaging with a very young child asking these questions (indicating that the child has ALREADY been exposed to it, probably at home) they should send them BACK to the probable source of the exposure? They could be asking these questions because they were exposed to it by listening in on adults at home talking (responsibly) about it. Or they could be exposed to these words and concepts in the course of being abused.

So you are arguing it should be illegal for a teacher to engage with a child on this subject, to potentially discover and report child abuse.

But, whatever. We knew from the start that conservatives don't care about the children. These children, and their abuse, is just a useful tool of conservatives to take cheap political shots and others who disagree with them.